163 Conn.App. 301
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Edna G. Banks died Oct 26, 2012; plaintiff Vernon G. Davis Jr. and Tonette Davis-Henriques are heirs.
- Tonette filed a Probate Court petition for administration listing six heirs; plaintiff separately filed a petition alleging a will existed.
- The will presented to Probate Court was not attested by two witnesses as required by §45a-251.
- Nov. 5, 2013 Probate Court decree denied probate of the will; court found the will not duly proved or admitted to probate.
- Plaintiff did not appeal the 2013 decree; about nine months later, plaintiff moved to admit the will into probate, supported by affidavits from plaintiff, Jennette Davis, and Byrd.
- Probate Court denied the motion on Aug. 19, 2014, holding the same document previously rejected in 2013 and relied on §45a-24 to insulate the decree from collateral attack.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the probate appeal to Superior Court was properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction | Plaintiff asserts timely appeal under §45a-186(a) | Defendant argues dismissal was proper due to collateral attack concerns | Appeal jurisdiction existed; dismissal was harmless error. |
| Whether the Probate Court properly refused to revisit its 2013 decree denying probate of the will | Plaintiff contends substantial compliance with §45a-251 could permit admission | Defendant contends strict compliance required; no basis to revisit decree | Strict compliance required; no substantial compliance exception recognized. |
| Whether the plaintiff can Ninth challenge the decree under §45a-24 and collateral attack rules | Plaintiff seeks to attack decree despite no fraud/mistake grounds | Decree conclusive; collateral attack barred absent fraud/mistake | §45a-24 bars collateral attack; complaint legally insufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gardner v. Balboni, 218 Conn. 220 (Conn. 1991) (strict compliance with wills act required for validity of will)
- Silverstein v. Laschever, 113 Conn. App. 404 (Conn. App. 2009) (res judicata and collateral attack considerations in probate)
- Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. Alves, 262 Conn. 480 (Conn. 2003) (dismissal may be harmless error when pleadings are insubstantial)
- Miller v. McNamara, 135 Conn. 489 (Conn. 1949) (fraud/mistake grounds open to attack probate decrees)
- Berkeley v. Berkeley, 152 Conn. 398 (Conn. 1965) (burden on proponent to prove due execution under § 45a-251)
- Crane v. Manchester, 143 Conn. 498 (Conn. 1956) (claims cannot change statutory issue of due execution)
- Gardner v. Balboni, 218 Conn. 225 (Conn. 1991) (rule of strict compliance; no harmless error exception)