162 Conn.App. 412
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Decedent Rose F. Fedus (d. 2006) left a handwritten (holographic), unwitnessed "Last Will and Testament" dated 12/21/2000; the document contains multiple hands/inks and was written in part by plaintiff James K. Goodwin at the decedent's direction.
- Goodwin probated the will in Philadelphia, obtained Letters Administration–CTA, and later sought ancillary probate in Connecticut under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 45a-288 by submitting an authenticated/exemplified copy and inventory of Connecticut property.
- Connecticut heirs (including defendant John Fedus) objected in the Colchester Probate Court, alleging lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, and legal insufficiency to convey Connecticut realty; the probate court initially found a "sufficient objection" under § 45a-288 and required competent proof.
- Goodwin appealed to the Superior Court (de novo review of the probate order limited to the probate issue), which held a full evidentiary hearing, found the will was proved and established in Pennsylvania, found no undue influence and adequate testamentary capacity, and concluded "no sufficient objection" under § 45a-288; the Superior Court sustained Goodwin's appeal.
- Defendant appealed, arguing (inter alia) that the will could not pass Connecticut real property (lex loci rei sitae), that the motion to dismiss should have been granted, and that the probate court lacked discretion to resolve "sufficient objection" beyond the statute's text; the Appellate Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Goodwin's Argument | Fedus's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 45a-288 requirements for ancillary probate were satisfied and whether a "sufficient objection" was shown | Goodwin: he submitted authenticated/exemplified will and Pennsylvania probate record and a statement of CT property; no statutory ground for objection was proved | Fedus: the will is legally insufficient to convey CT realty, was executed informally, and factual objections (capacity/undue influence) warranted refusing filing/recording | Court held § 45a-288 requirements were met and, after de novo hearing, found no sufficient objection — ordered filing/recording |
| Whether the motion to dismiss (Practice Book § 15-8) should have been granted for failure to make a prima facie case | Goodwin: he made out the statutory case under § 45a-288 and presented evidence of execution and probate | Fedus: Goodwin failed to prove the document was a valid will conveying CT property and that it was proved by a competent court | Court denied the motion to dismiss as the sole issue was sufficiency of objection under § 45a-288, which required evidentiary resolution |
| Whether lex loci rei sitae bars admission of a foreign will that was not executed under Connecticut formalities | Goodwin: § 45a-251/§ 45a-288 permit admission of wills probated in another state; CT will recognize a will valid where executed to pass CT realty | Fedus: Connecticut real property requires compliance with CT formalities (lex loci rei sitae), so the Pennsylvania holographic/unwitnessed will cannot pass CT realty | Court rejected this as dispositive: statute allows admission of wills proved in another state; defendant introduced no evidence that Pennsylvania probate was defective |
| Whether full faith & credit or res judicata required preclusive effect of the Pennsylvania proceedings so objections were barred | Goodwin: Pennsylvania adjudication and withdrawal of appeals entitled his submission to finality/weight | Fedus: Pennsylvania proceedings did not foreclose CT objections; probate court misapplied §45a-288 by re-litigating matters | Court treated Pennsylvania record as entitled to respect but exercised its §45a-288 hearing authority; it did not rely on preclusion doctrines to resolve the objection and found no sufficient objection on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Robertson v. Pickrell, 109 U.S. 608 (U.S. 1883) (classic statement of lex loci rei sitae principle)
- Mickey v. Mickey, 292 Conn. 597 (Conn. 2009) (statutory construction principles; examine plain meaning first)
- Silverstein’s Appeal from Probate, 13 Conn. App. 45 (Conn. App. 1987) (Superior Court’s limited statutory jurisdiction on probate appeals; de novo but limited review)
- Marshall v. Marshall, 71 Conn. App. 565 (Conn. App. 2002) (Superior Court’s jurisdiction on probate appeals is limited to the order appealed from)
- Irwin’s Appeal from Probate, 33 Conn. 128 (Conn. 1865) (discussing Connecticut statute modifying common-law lex loci rule)