In re Probate Appeal of Murrell, AC47876

Mark Murrell died intestate, and Marquea Murrell petitioned to administer his estate and was initially appointed administrator. 1
Jemar Smith moved to revoke Marquea's appointment and sought administration himself, claiming he was Mark Murrell's biological son and heir. 2
The Probate Court removed Marquea, appointed a temporary administrator, then later appointed Attorney Peter M. Berry as permanent administrator and dismissed Marquea's petition. 3
The Superior Court held a de novo evidentiary hearing and affirmed the Probate Court after receiving child support records, a defective paternity acknowledgment, and testimony about the family relationship. 4
The record included a 1994 family support magistrate child support default judgment against Mark Murrell, a 1999 wage withholding order, and a 2012 modification order based on the same support obligation. 5
On appeal, Marquea argued Jemar had not satisfied the Connecticut Parentage Act, while Jemar argued the earlier child support judgments already adjudicated paternity. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the Connecticut Parentage Act apply to determine paternity? 7	Marquea said no pre-2022 judgment adjudicated paternity.	Jemar said the 1994 support judgment predated the Act.	The Act did not apply because paternity had already been adjudicated. 8
Did the 1994 child support judgment adjudicate paternity? 9	Marquea said child support orders do not equal paternity adjudications.	Jemar said support judgments necessarily presupposed paternity.	Yes; the support judgment and later orders established adjudicated paternity. 10
Could Marquea collaterally attack the 1994 judgment? 11	Marquea challenged the defective acknowledgment and default judgment.	Jemar said the prior judgment was final and presumptively valid.	No; the 1994 judgment was presumptively valid and unrefuted. 12
Was Jemar required to satisfy Connecticut Parentage Act prerequisites? 13	Marquea said Jemar failed the Act's statutory requirements.	Jemar said §46b-553 exempted this case from the Act.	No; Jemar need not satisfy the Act's prerequisites. 14

Salce v. Cardello, 348 Conn. 90 (Conn. 2023) (scope of review in probate appeals 15)
Rutherford v. Slagle, 352 Conn. 27 (Conn. 2025) (probate appeal without record is tried de novo in Superior Court 16)
Meadowbrook Center, Inc. v. Buchman, 328 Conn. 586 (Conn. 2018) (statutory application is reviewed plenarily 17)
Fredo v. Fredo, 234 Conn. App. 106 (Conn. App. 2025) (construction of a judgment is a question of law reviewed plenarily 18)
Commissioner of Social Services v. Smith, 265 Conn. 723 (Conn. 2003) (defaulting party's allegations may be deemed admitted in support proceedings 19)
Sousa v. Sousa, 322 Conn. 757 (Conn. 2016) (final judgments are presumptively valid and collateral attacks are disfavored 20)
Schoenhorn v. Moss, 347 Conn. 501 (Conn. 2023) (collateral attacks on judgments undermine finality and orderly justice 21)