In Re Sanzo's Appeal From Probate
35 A.3d 302
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Sanzo died July 22, 2005; July 17, 2005 will bearing a handwritten mark was witnessed by Strollo and Pitts; the probate court refused to admit the will for lack of testamentary capacity; the daughters appealed to Superior Court where a jury ruled Sanzo lacked capacity; Kathleen Sanzo appeals the jury verdict and denial of her postverdict motions; Strollo testified about Sanzo's capacity and signed attestations; Barone testified about witness oaths; the court allowed lay testimony on capacity and admitted the will documents for purposes of credibility; the trial judge upheld the verdict and denied motions to set aside.
- The will provided specific bequests of $40,000 to each son and residue to the two daughters; the signatories testified Sanzo appeared of sound mind; Sanzo did not read the will, and there was no discussion of estate size or beneficiaries in the room; Strollo testified she had no information to determine Sanzo's capacity.
- Strollo testified she observed no information demonstrating Sanzo was of sound mind; the July 17 will was already admitted, triggering questions about the attestations and capacity; defense asked a hypothetical question about whether Strollo would have sworn Sanzo was of sound mind; the court admitted the question and Strollo answered she would not swear to that proposition.
- The appellate court addressed whether lay opinion on testamentary capacity is permissible post-Code of Evidence § 7-3 and concluded that prior common-law allowances for lay testimony on capacity remain valid; the evidence was based on Strollo's personal observations in the room; the court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion to set aside the verdict, finding the evidence competent and not against the weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a lay witness could answer a hypothetical question on testamentary capacity | Sanzo obj; Strollo’s opinion was speculative and not based on observation | Strollo's testimony rested on personal observations and is admissible | Yes; lay testimony based on observation admissible |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion in denying motion to set aside verdict | Verdict contrary to weight of evidence given capacity issues | Evidence supported capacity finding and credibility determinations | No; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Nichols, 78 Conn. 429 (1905) (lay testimony on mental condition permissible under common law)
- Turner’s Appeal, 72 Conn. 305 (1899) (lay witnesses may testify on mental condition of testatrix)
- State v. Watson, 50 Conn.App. 591 (1998) (lay witnesses may testify as to observed facts; exception to ultimate issue rule)
- Cimino v. Robinson, 6 Conn.App. 680 (1986) (lay opinion based on personal observation allowed for hypothetical questions)
- Barningus v. Wilheim, 306 F.3d 17 (10th Cir. 2010) (motion to compel arbitration standard analogous to summary judgment; (example placeholder))
- City National Bank & Trust Co.'s Appeal, 145 Conn. 518 (1958) (testamentary capacity questions for trier of fact)
- Stanton v. Grigley, 177 Conn. 558 (1979) (burden of proof on capacity disputes; presumption of sanity)
- Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., 265 Conn. 210 (2003) (standard for reversing verdicts on errors in trial)
- Dinan v. Marchand, 279 Conn. 558 (2006) (harmless error standard in evidentiary rulings)
- State v. DeJesus, 288 Conn. 418 (2008) (Code of Evidence not to displace established common-law rules)