348 Conn. 625
Conn.2024Background
- The plaintiff, David O’Sullivan, is the decedent’s only child; the defendant, Alan F. Haught, was her second husband.
- The decedent executed a will in 2013 leaving her entire estate to Haught and expressly disinheriting O’Sullivan.
- After the decedent’s death, Haught submitted the will to probate, which O’Sullivan contested, alleging undue influence among other grounds, but the Probate Court admitted the will to probate.
- O’Sullivan appealed the Probate Court’s decree to the Superior Court for a trial de novo, and simultaneously filed a separate tort action for tortious interference with an expected inheritance.
- The trial court consolidated the two actions and partially denied Haught’s motion for summary judgment, allowing the tortious interference claim to proceed.
- The Appellate Court dismissed Haught’s appeal from the partial denial for lack of final judgment; the Connecticut Supreme Court subsequently reviewed the matter after granting certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is interlocutory denial of summary judgment (on collateral estoppel) immediately appealable? | Concedes such appeals can be final judgments, but says Haught can't prevail on merits | Denial of summary judgment based on collateral estoppel is immediately appealable | Yes, such denials are appealable if a colorable claim is raised |
| Does Probate Court decree have preclusive (collateral estoppel) effect on tortious interference claim? | No preclusion because appeal is de novo and issues can be relitigated | Probate decree remains in force unless reversed; thus collateral estoppel applies | No preclusive effect because trial de novo suspends preclusion |
| Did the trial court use correct reasoning for rejecting collateral estoppel? | Argues Probate Court lacked jurisdiction over the tort claim | Asserts that jurisdiction was present as to issue of undue influence | Trial court correct that no preclusion, but reasoning was wrong (should be based on de novo effect, not jurisdiction) |
| Should the Supreme Court address the merits directly or remand to the Appellate Court? | Judicial economy supports Supreme Court ruling | Not specified | Supreme Court resolves merits under supervisory authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Barash v. Lembo, 348 Conn. 264 (Conn. 2023) (de novo appeal from Probate Court suspends preclusive effect of decree for collateral estoppel purposes)
- Solon v. Slater, 345 Conn. 794 (Conn. 2023) (Probate decree generally has preclusive effect, unless de novo review is pending)
- Santorso v. Bristol Hospital, 308 Conn. 338 (Conn. 2013) (summary judgment denial on collateral estoppel is an appealable final judgment)
- Convalescent Center of Bloomfield, Inc. v. Dept. of Income Maintenance, 208 Conn. 187 (Conn. 1988) (collateral estoppel issues are ripe for immediate appellate review)
- Prince v. Sheffield, 158 Conn. 286 (Conn. 1969) (trial de novo in probate appeals requires independent determination, not bound by prior findings)