Heisinger v. Cleary, 150 A.3d 1136

Background

Decedent died in 2007; Cody Heisinger (son) is sole heir and beneficiary. Co-executors were Ward Cleary (attorney) and Ann Dillon (sister). Will authorized executors to employ professionals and incorporated powers under the Connecticut Fiduciary Powers Act.
Estate’s principal asset was closely held Bartlett stock. Executorship retained Management Planning, Inc. (Management), an experienced valuation firm, to prepare a date-of-death appraisal.
Management’s July 2008 appraisal placed value at $4,862,820; an earlier 2001 appraisal (in divorce proceedings) valued the stock much lower. The estate filed tax returns using Management’s valuation; taxes were ultimately paid or deferred and stock later sold at the appraised price.
In 2012 Heisinger sued executors for breach of fiduciary duty, alleging they grossly overvalued the stock and should have known (or obtained another appraisal) given the 2001 valuation and other “red flags.”
Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing plaintiff needed an expert to prove standard of care and that they reasonably relied on a qualified appraiser. Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants for lack of expert; Supreme Court agreed expert testimony was not required but affirmed on statutory-exculpation grounds.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether expert testimony was required to prove standard of care	Heisinger: no expert required; lay jury can assess negligence/benign neglect.	Defendants: expert needed to explain stock valuation and estate administration.	No expert required: §45a-234(19) supplies a lay due-care standard.
Applicable standard of care for executors who hire professionals	Heisinger: fiduciary duty allows recovery for nonfraudulent negligence; plaintiff need not show fraud/self-dealing.	Defendants: statutory standard (Fiduciary Powers Act) applies and shields them if they exercised due care.	§45a-234(19) applies: executor liable only if failed to select/retain professional with due care (ordinary negligence standard).
Whether defendants breached duty in selecting/retaining Management	Heisinger: defendants should have been alerted by prior 2001 appraisal and sought another valuation or amended returns.	Defendants: they used a reputable, experienced appraiser (Management) and reasonably relied on its valuation.	No breach: undisputed facts show Management was qualified and selection was made with due care; defendants shielded by statute.
Whether summary judgment was proper absent plaintiff’s expert	Heisinger: even without expert, facts entitle him to summary judgment on liability.	Defendants: summary judgment proper because plaintiff lacked expert and offered no evidence of deficient selection.	Summary judgment affirmed—expert unnecessary, but record shows only one reasonable conclusion: defendants exercised due care and are statutorily protected.

Key Cases Cited

Hoskins v. Titan Value Equities Group, Inc., 252 Conn. 789 (standard of review for summary judgment)
Bozelko v. Papastavros, 323 Conn. 275 (expert testimony required when essential element needs expert)
Steinhaus v. Steinhaus, 145 Conn. 95 (definition of due care as negligence)
Rawls v. Progressive Northern Ins. Co., 310 Conn. 768 (ordinary prudent person standard; directed verdict standard)
Cadle Co. v. D’Addario, 268 Conn. 441 (limitations on shifting burden to fiduciary absent fraud/self-dealing)
Doe v. Hartford Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 317 Conn. 357 (when expert testimony is required)
Smith v. Leuthner, 156 Conn. 422 (when application of standard becomes question of law)
Abrahams v. Young & Rubicam, Inc., 240 Conn. 300 (when causation or factual issue becomes question of law)