190 Conn. App. 56
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- William P. Meyerjack was conservator of Lucille S. Kirsch’s estate and, on October 14, 2016, filed in Probate an application to terminate the conservatorship and a request for waiver of fees; the Probate Court denied both and mailed notice on October 20, 2016.
- Section 45a-186(a) requires appeals from Probate orders (including conservatorship terminations) to be filed in Superior Court within 45 days of mailing of notice.
- Meyerjack filed an application for waiver of appellate fees in Superior Court on December 1, 2016; the Superior Court granted the fee waiver on December 5, 2016, and the complaint was filed December 9, 2016.
- The Superior Court sua sponte dismissed the appeal as untimely (finding the 45-day deadline had expired) and concluded it lacked subject matter jurisdiction; Meyerjack (later substituted by administrator Andrew Knott) appealed to the Appellate Court.
- The Appellate Court considered whether filing a fee-waiver application under § 45a-186c tolled the 45-day appeal period in § 45a-186(a) and whether the December 9 filing was therefore timely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filing an application for waiver of appeal fees under § 45a‑186c tolls the 45‑day appeal period in § 45a‑186(a) | Meyerjack: filing the fee‑waiver tolled the appeal deadline, so December 9 filing was timely | Trial court: appeal deadline ran from Oct 20 notice; Dec 9 was beyond 45 days and therefore untimely | Held: Filing the fee‑waiver tolled the time under § 45a‑186c(b); appeal timely (deadline extended to Dec 9) |
| Whether the Superior Court properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction | Meyerjack: dismissal improper because tolling made appeal timely | Trial court: lacked jurisdiction because statutory deadline not met | Held: Dismissal was improper; Superior Court had jurisdiction because tolling applied |
| Whether appeal should be deemed commenced on date fee waiver is granted (service/form issue) | Substitute plaintiff urged appeal should be deemed commenced when fee waiver is granted because complaint often accompanies waiver | Trial court/State: statutory filing rules control; permitting deemed commencement would conflict with § 45a‑186 filing requirements | Held: Court declined to deem appeal commenced on fee‑waiver grant; no requirement to include complaint with waiver per Practice Book § 8‑2 |
| Whether courts may modify statutory filing rules when waivers are sought | Meyerjack: equitable/functional need to accommodate waivers | State: courts cannot rewrite statute; only legislature may alter deadlines | Held: Courts will not rewrite statutes; tolling provided by § 45a‑186c is the proper accommodation |
Key Cases Cited
- Arriaga v. Commissioner of Correction, 120 Conn. App. 258 (2010) (subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law and may be raised at any time)
- Burnell v. Chorches, 173 Conn. App. 788 (2017) (appeal rights from Probate are statutory and Superior Court sits as a probate court on appeal)
- Corneroli v. D’Amico, 116 Conn. App. 59 (2009) (failure to meet § 45a‑186 time limit deprives Superior Court of subject matter jurisdiction)
- Asia A. v. Geoffrey M., 182 Conn. App. 22 (2018) (courts may not rewrite statutes; legislative change required for substantive alterations)