155 Conn. App. 371
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Decedent Kathleen Gisselbrecht appointed her longtime employee and attorney, Zbigniew S. Rozbicki, as executor; after her 2007 death Rozbicki administered the estate and later was removed as executor by the Probate Court.
- A life insurance policy named two siblings (Rozsas and E. Gisselbrecht) as beneficiaries; Rozsas and E. Gisselbrecht received the proceeds, and Rozbicki later sued them to recover those proceeds for the estate.
- Rozbicki submitted multiple accountings; after removal he filed a final accounting seeking fiduciary fees ($38,417.50 claimed), attorney’s fees for the civil suit ($22,605), and fees for the home sale ($2,860).
- The Probate Court awarded substantially less: fiduciary fee $5,000 (later reduced by the trial court), limited attorney’s fees for the home sale, and granted several surcharges in favor of the defendants; Rozbicki appealed to the Superior Court (trial de novo).
- At the de novo trial the Superior Court (1) found the civil suit was motivated by a personal vendetta and denied civil-suit attorney’s fees, (2) awarded $2,000 fiduciary fee and $1,500 for real-estate-related attorney’s fees, and (3) sustained most surcharges the defendants sought (defendants had withdrawn one surcharge for stock loss).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court had sufficient factual basis to find the civil suit was a "personal vendetta" and deny related fees | Rozbicki argued he brought the civil suit in good faith as executor to protect estate interests | Defendants argued suit was retaliatory and unnecessary, brought to harass beneficiaries after disputes over fees | Court upheld findings as supported by record; credited evidence of timing, hostility, and lack of beneficiary claims—denied civil-suit fees |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in reducing/denying requested fiduciary and attorney fees | Rozbicki contended his requested fees were reasonable and supported by his accounting | Defendants argued the estate was small/simple, work was ministerial, accounting was error‑ridden/double-billed, and Rozbicki delayed and depleted estate | Court applied Hayward factors, found estate simple and some conduct improper, concluded award was reasonable and not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether trial court erred by not incorporating parties’ prior Probate Court surcharge/stipulation for stock loss into its judgment | Rozbicki argued parties had stipulated and Probate Court ordered surcharge that should be reflected on de novo appeal | Defendants withdrew that surcharge at start of trial; trial court treated withdrawal as leaving that portion unopposed but not as requiring entry into judgment | Court found defendants had withdrawn surcharge on record; no prejudice shown to Rozbicki; no error |
| Standard of review and scope of de novo trial | Rozbicki argued trial court misapplied legal principles governing executor duties | Defendants and court noted appeal from probate is a de novo proceeding where Superior Court sits as probate court and evaluates fees and surcharges anew | Court reiterated de novo standard, limited scope to accounting and surcharges, and declined to relitigate merits of underlying civil suit |
Key Cases Cited
- Sigal v. Hartford Nat’l Bank & Trust Co., 119 Conn. 570 (1935) (insurance proceeds payable to named beneficiaries are outside the probate estate)
- State v. Gordon, 45 Conn. App. 490 (1997) (Superior Court sits as probate court on appeal from probate)
- In re Probate Appeal of Cadle Co., 152 Conn. App. 427 (2014) (appeal from probate requires a trial de novo and issues remain in probate unless retried)
- Masse v. Perez, 139 Conn. App. 794 (2012) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence and deference to trial court credibility findings)
- McGrath v. Gallant, 143 Conn. App. 129 (2013) (attorney/executor fee awards reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Hayward v. Plant, 98 Conn. 374 (1923) (nine-factor test for reasonableness of executor compensation)
- In re Andrews’ Appeal from Probate, 78 Conn. App. 441 (2003) (distinguishing routine/ministerial executor tasks from extraordinary services)
- Bank of Boston Conn. v. Avon Meadows Associates, 40 Conn. App. 536 (1996) (presumption that trial court considered applicable legal principles unless record shows otherwise)