225 Conn.App. 280
Conn. App. Ct.2024Background
- The case involves a testamentary trust created by Joseph Merrow in 1946 for the benefit of the descendants of his siblings; he died in 1947.
- Two defendants, Fass and Weiss, are great grandnieces of the testator and were adopted—Weiss as a child in 1948, Fass as an adult in 2008.
- Fass and Weiss began receiving distributions from the trust after their adoptive parents died.
- Joan Buzzard, a beneficiary, objected to trust accountings, arguing the trust didn’t permit distributions to adopted persons, especially adult adoptees.
- Probate Court approved the trust accounting; the Superior Court granted summary judgment to defendants, holding Connecticut law presumes adopted persons are included unless clear intent otherwise is shown.
- Plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a 1949 probate decree distributing the residue to the trust fixed the class of beneficiaries and excluded adopted persons post-1991 | The 1949 decree fixed the class of beneficiaries as lineal, blood descendants; adopted persons, especially after 1991, are excluded by law | The 1949 decree merely transferred assets to the trustee; ongoing distributions are subject to later rules including inclusion of adopted persons | The 1949 decree did not fix the class or vest rights; later distributions are governed by current law, including adopted persons |
| Interpretation of "issue" and "descendants" terms in the trust as including or excluding adopted individuals | Common law at the time the will was executed presumed these terms meant only blood relatives, so they should exclude adoptees | Modern statute reversed the presumption, making inclusion of legally adopted persons standard unless will/trust clearly states otherwise | No clear and convincing evidence testator intended to exclude adoptees; statutory presumption applies, so adoptees are included |
| Applicability of statutory exception for testamentary instruments executed before October 1, 1959 under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 45a-731(11)(B) | Distributions made to the trust under the 1949 decree qualify as "distribution" under exception, barring inclusion of adopted persons | "Distribution" under the exception refers to actual distribution to final beneficiaries, not to the trust itself; only pre-1991 court-ordered beneficiary distributions are excepted | Exception did not apply, as ongoing and future distributions after 1991 are governed by modern law |
| Whether evidence exists of the testator’s intent to exclude adopted persons under § 45a-731(11)(A) | Testator’s silence on adoptees and use of "issue"/"descendants" shows intent to limit to blood descendants | Absence of explicit exclusion does not meet clear and convincing standard; statutory presumption prevails | No clear and convincing evidence; terms alone don’t rebut statutory presumption |
Key Cases Cited
- Middletown Trust Co. v. Gaffey, 96 Conn. 61 (Ct. 1921) (discussing presumption regarding adopted children in wills under common law)
- Mooney v. Tolles, 111 Conn. 1 (Ct. 1930) ("stranger to the adoption" doctrine explanation)
- Connecticut Bank & Trust Co. v. Bovey, 162 Conn. 201 (Ct. 1972) (explains the common-law presumption for wills executed prior to 1959)
- Trowbridge v. Trowbridge, 127 Conn. 469 (Ct. 1941) (addresses intent in testamentary construction)
- Bankers Trust Co. v. Pearson, 140 Conn. 332 (Ct. 1953) (application of presumptions in interpreting trust terms)