157 Conn. App. 350
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Parties divorced in 2007; their separation agreement (incorporated into the dissolution judgment) required each to maintain life insurance naming an irrevocable life insurance trust for their children, with both as trustees, but no such trust was ever created.
- In April 2012 the former spouse (defendant) executed a will creating testamentary trusts to be funded by her life insurance; she named Susan Bennett executrix and trustee. The defendant died in December 2012.
- The Probate Court admitted the will and appointed Bennett as executrix and trustee in March 2013; no appeal was taken from that Probate Court order.
- The plaintiff (Ferraiolo) filed a motion in Superior Court in July 2013 asking the trial court to order the Probate Court to remove Bennett and appoint him sole trustee; Bennett moved to intervene and objected.
- The trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion concluding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction; the plaintiff appealed arguing the court erred on jurisdiction and failed to consider Bennett’s standing to intervene.
- The Appellate Court agreed the Superior Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction (on the basis that the Probate Court order was conclusive absent an appeal) but held the trial court should have dismissed the motion rather than denied it, and remanded with direction to render judgment dismissing the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Superior Court had subject matter jurisdiction to grant the plaintiff relief removing the Probate-appointed trustee | Ferraiolo: family/dissolution court can enforce the dissolution judgment and ensure complete justice between parties | Bennett/estate: Probate Court has authority to appoint/remove testamentary trustees; Superior Court cannot collaterally attack probate orders absent appeal | No jurisdiction — Superior Court lacked authority because Probate Court’s appointment is conclusive absent an appeal |
| Whether the plaintiff could collaterally attack the Probate Court’s appointment without appealing | Ferraiolo: sought direct relief in Superior Court based on dissolution judgment obligations | Bennett: such relief would be a collateral attack on a probate decree; statutory appeal route (§ 45a-186) required | Collateral attack barred; plaintiff should have appealed the Probate order |
| Whether Bennett had standing to intervene to oppose the motion | Ferraiolo: argued Bennett lacked standing to intervene | Bennett: as executrix and trustee, she could oppose relief affecting the estate/trust | Appellate court did not decide standing (rendered moot by jurisdictional ruling) — issue unnecessary to resolve |
| Proper procedural disposition when court lacks subject matter jurisdiction | Ferraiolo: sought merits relief (removal/appointment) | Bennett: court should not give relief and ought to respect probate process; if lacking jurisdiction, matter should be dismissed | Motion must be dismissed (trial court erred by denying rather than dismissing; remanded with direction to dismiss) |
Key Cases Cited
- Jungnelius v. Jungnelius, 133 Conn. App. 250 (Conn. App. 2012) (standard of review on subject matter jurisdiction)
- Silverstein v. Laschever, 113 Conn. App. 404 (Conn. App. 2009) (probate court decrees conclusive until appealed; Superior Court cannot alter probate orders)
- Hotchkiss’ Appeal, 89 Conn. 420 (Conn. 1915) (prohibiting collateral attack on probate decree absent appeal)
- Shelton v. Hadlock, 62 Conn. 143 (Conn. 1893) (same—collateral attack on probate decisions not permitted)
- Patterson v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co., 104 Conn. App. 824 (Conn. App. 2007) (reaffirming prohibition on collateral attacks on probate orders)
- State v. Tabone, 301 Conn. 708 (Conn. 2011) (when court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, correct remedy is dismissal rather than denial)