173 Conn. App. 788
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Plaintiffs Burnell (individually and as executor) and Savarese appeal a Probate Court decree in the Northern District of Fairfield County regarding Burnell’s final financial report for the decedent’s estate.
- Probate Court proceedings included a January 6, 2015 hearing; notice of hearing sent December 11, 2014 to interested parties.
- Memorandum of decision issued February 12, 2015 and mailed February 13, 2015; plaintiffs received it by February 23, 2015.
- Plaintiffs filed a Superior Court complaint on April 2, 2015; defendant dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as untimely under § 45a-186.
- Plaintiffs argued § 45a-187(a) twelve-month window (due to alleged lack of notice) or, alternatively, that § 52-593a tolled time; court rejected these in favor of § 45a-186(a).
- Court affirmed dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to untimely probate appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness framework for probate appeal | Burnell argues § 45a-187(a) applies due to lack of notice | Chorches argues § 45a-186(a) governs; 30-day limit applies | § 45a-186(a) governs; untimely under 30 days |
| Effect of notice deficiency on tolling | If notice deficient, § 45a-187(a) would toll | Plaintiffs attended hearing; § 45a-186(a) applies, tolling not available | Not applicable; attendance at hearing keeps within § 45a-186(a) |
| Applicability of § 52-593a to probate appeals | Delivery to marshal within 30 days could save under § 52-593a | Probate appeals are not civil actions; § 52-593a does not apply | § 52-593a does not apply to probate appeals; not saving device |
Key Cases Cited
- Connery v. Gieske, 323 Conn. 377 (2016) (strict compliance with § 45a-186 prerequisite to appeal; court’s jurisdiction depends on proper timing)
- Heussner v. Hayes, 289 Conn. 795 (2008) (probate appeal jurisdiction limited; mesne process requirements do not apply)