Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

MOLLIE CORATO vs. MARY RAFFONE (RUFFONE)

A garnishee-administratrix could not assert a set-off against a legatee for rent due to the estate which accrued during the administration, where the rents were not necessary for the payment of debts or administration expenses. While section 4956 of the General Statutes, Revision of 1930, gives the possession, care and control of the real estate of a decedent to his administrator and provides that during administration the income of the real estate shall vest in the administrator as personal property, the statutory possession and control of the administrator are for the benefit of the persons entitled to the real estate, and rents and profits received from it are regarded as an incident of the real estate, and, if not needed for the payment of debts or administration expenses, go with it.

QUINLAN, J.

By a memorandum filed February 26, 1943, a suggestion was made that if set-off was relied upon the pleadings should be modified. This was done and a reargument asked. A transcript of the relevant testimony was also produced. The debt sought to be set off consists of a rent claim of the administratrix of the estate of Peter Corato. That the rent accrued during the administration seems clear. It is true that section 4956 of the General Statutes, Revision of 1930, gives the possession, care and control to an administrator and provides further that during administration the income shall vest as personal property. Title to real estate vests in the heirs at death. Stevens vs. Smoker, 84 Conn. 569, 574; Remington vs. American Bible Society, 44 id. 512. This latter case held that the statutory possession and control were for the benefit of the persons entitled to the real estate and that the rents and profits received from it were to be regarded as an incident of the real estate, and if not needed for the payment of debts were to go with it, and did not go to the residuary legatees. In the case at bar there were no debts of the estate, and it does not appear that the rents were necessary for the payment of administration expenses. There can be no set-off.

See 11 Conn. Sup. 446.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

CORATO v. RAFFONE
(Apr 2, 1943)