234 Conn.App. 378
Conn. App. Ct.2025Background
- Larry Allen Moore, named executor in the 2018 will of Clifton Dewayne Bryant, was removed as executor by the Probate Court after the decedent’s widow, Chelsea Bryant-Mitchell, petitioned for his removal based on alleged misconduct and conflicts of interest.
- Key allegations against Moore included failure to perform estate accounting, noncompliance with court orders, self-dealing (including use and transfer of estate assets for his own benefit), mismanagement, and acting in self-interest.
- Moore appealed the Probate Court’s removal order to the Superior Court, also seeking to challenge both the merits of his removal and the authenticity/admission of the will.
- The Superior Court conducted a trial de novo but limited its review to the scope of the Probate Court's removal decree, finding Moore unfit due to persistent failure, self-dealing, and conflicts of interest.
- Moore appealed, arguing the Superior Court improperly limited its review, denied him opportunities to present evidence on various points, and wrongly held him accountable for attorney failures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of Superior Court Review | Moore argued review should include broader probate matters, including the will’s admission. | Bryant-Mitchell argued review is limited to the removal order appealed. | Review limited to the order appealed; Superior Court did not err. |
| Evidence Preclusion | Moore claimed he was prevented from presenting evidence refuting allegations and challenging the will. | Bryant-Mitchell argued Moore failed to preserve or brief evidence rulings. | Court declined review due to inadequate briefing/preservation. |
| Challenge to Admission of Will | Moore alleged the will’s admission was invalid and Superior Court should have reviewed it. | Bryant-Mitchell pointed out no appeal was taken on that decree. | Review of will’s admission out of scope; claim rejected. |
| Attorney Failures | Moore stated he was unfairly blamed for failings of attorneys he retained. | Bryant-Mitchell argued Moore was unfit, failed to cooperate, and responsible for his own actions. | Court found Moore unfit and primarily at fault; claim inadequately briefed and unsupported. |
Key Cases Cited
- Salce v. Cardello, 210 Conn. App. 66 (2022) (Describes standard of review in probate appeals and deference to factual findings unless clearly erroneous)
- Connery v. Gieske, 323 Conn. 377 (2016) (Superior Court’s role as court of probate on de novo appeals)
- In re Probate Appeal of McIntyre, 207 Conn. App. 433 (2021) (Scope of de novo review in probate appeals and limits on appealable orders)
- Silverstein’s Appeal from Probate, 13 Conn. App. 45 (1987) (Superior Court cannot enlarge scope of probate appeal beyond the decree attacked)
- Marshall v. Marshall, 71 Conn. App. 565 (2002) (Jurisdiction is limited to decree appealed from; other issues are out of scope)
- Ferri v. Powell-Ferri, 326 Conn. 438 (2017) (Executor’s fiduciary duty of undivided loyalty and duty to avoid conflicts of interest)