204 Conn.App. 647
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background
- Solon and Michael Solon married after executing an antenuptial agreement that gave Solon a life estate in the Stamford home and provided estate support for the property.
- After Michael was diagnosed with terminal cancer, he gave Solon a handwritten November 9, 2013 note indicating intended transfers of various assets to her; negotiations to amend the antenuptial agreement were initiated but never finalized.
- Michael executed a will in February 2014 leaving his residuary estate to a trust for his two adult children; Slater (friend/attorney) prepared an earlier 2013 will and later applied to probate the 2014 will.
- Solon objected in Probate Court, alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence; after a full evidentiary hearing the Probate Court admitted the 2014 will, finding insufficient evidence of incapacity or undue influence; Solon did not appeal.
- Solon then sued Slater and Joshua Solon in Superior Court for tortious interference with the antenuptial agreement and with her expectancy of inheritance (among other tort claims); defendants moved for summary judgment arguing collateral estoppel and res judicata based on the Probate Court decree.
- The trial court granted summary judgment on the two tortious interference counts on collateral estoppel grounds; the court denied dismissal of the other tort counts (later withdrawn); Solon appealed and the Appellate Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether collateral estoppel bars Solon's tortious interference claims | Probate Court only decided testamentary capacity/undue influence as to admission of the 2014 will; it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate tort claims for money damages, so Solon had no full and fair opportunity to litigate those tort claims | The same factual predicate (alleged undue influence/ wrongful control) was fully litigated and necessarily decided against Solon in Probate Court; that final decree precludes relitigation in Superior Court | Affirmed: collateral estoppel applies—issue identical, actually litigated, and necessarily determined by Probate Court; counts for tortious interference are barred |
| Whether res judicata bars the tort claims | Solon argued the Probate proceeding did not resolve the separate tort claims | Defendants alternatively argued claim preclusion; court evaluated but did not rely on res judicata as the basis for dismissal | Trial court found res judicata did not bar the claims; appellate court affirmed judgment on collateral estoppel grounds and therefore did not decide res judicata |
| Whether tortious interference requires different proof than undue influence (identity-of-issue) | Tort claims for interference with contract/expectancy are distinct causes of action seeking money damages and thus should survive even if the will was admitted | Tortious interference requires proof of improper conduct (fraud, intimidation, undue influence) —the same conduct Solon alleged and which Probate Court found insufficient | Held: legal and factual overlap is sufficient—the Probate Court’s finding that alleged conduct did not constitute undue influence necessarily forecloses relitigation of the same impropriety element in tortious interference claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Doyle v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., 179 Conn. App. 9 (Conn. App. 2017) (summary judgment standard and plenary review of collateral estoppel applicability)
- Kimberly C. v. Anthony C., 179 Conn. App. 856 (Conn. App. 2018) (elements and prerequisites for collateral estoppel)
- Dinan v. Marchand, 279 Conn. 558 (Conn. 2006) (definition and elements of undue influence)
- Stanton v. Grigley, 177 Conn. 558 (Conn. 1979) (discussion of pressure and circumstances demonstrating undue influence)
- Lee v. Horrigan, 140 Conn. 232 (Conn. 1953) (factors to infer undue influence from surrounding facts and circumstances)
- Lancaster v. Bank of New York, 147 Conn. 566 (Conn. 1960) (requirement that undue influence must have caused a will that did not reflect testator’s intent)
- Vaicunas v. Gaylord, 196 Conn. App. 785 (Conn. App. 2020) (burden of proof for undue influence and evidentiary standard)
- American Diamond Exchange, Inc. v. Alpert, 101 Conn. App. 83 (Conn. App. 2007) (elements of tortious interference and necessity of proving improper means or motive)
- Heussner v. Day, Berry & Howard, LLP, 94 Conn. App. 569 (Conn. App. 2006) (Probate Court decrees are final for res judicata/collateral estoppel purposes)