Tyler v. Tyler
151 Conn.App. 98
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Ruth Tyler executed an irrevocable trust on October 8, 2004, naming Richard Tatoian trustee and providing for distribution to her five sons (John, Bruce, Thomas, Russell, Jay) at her death; the trust incorporated reductions for debts each son owed to Ruth.
- Ruth died April 1, 2010; because of the trust assets and debts, Jay received nothing under the trust.
- Jay sued (self-represented) contesting the trust, alleging undue influence by his brother Thomas; Bruce filed a cross-complaint admitting undue influence allegations and asserting claims only against Tatoian (trustee) for negligence and fiduciary breaches.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; the trial court struck portions of plaintiffs’ evidence, granted summary judgment in part: (1) on Jay’s counts to modify the trust (finding no genuine issue of undue influence), and (2) on most claims against Tatoian (statutory/contractual bar), but later vacated summary judgment only as to the trustee’s accounting obligation.
- On appeal, the court held the judgment final as to Thomas, John, and Russell (so appealable) but not final as to Tatoian (dismissed that portion for lack of appellate jurisdiction), and reversed summary judgment on Jay’s undue-influence counts, remanding for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the partial summary-judgment order is final and appealable as to the trustee, Tatoian | Plaintiffs argued the ruling was appealable (interlocutory or final) | Defendants argued the order was not final as to Tatoian | Not final as to Tatoian; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as to him; final as to Thomas, John, Russell |
| Whether summary judgment was proper on Jay’s claim to modify the trust for undue influence by Thomas | Jay argued affidavits and documents raised genuine issues on (1) susceptibility, (2) opportunity, (3) disposition, and (4) result indicating undue influence | Defendants argued plaintiffs failed to present sufficient admissible evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact on essential elements | Reversed: viewing evidence in Jay’s favor, genuine issues existed as to susceptibility, opportunity, and result; undue-influence claims must go to jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Lone Star Industries, Inc., 290 Conn. 767 (discussing final-judgment rule and appellate jurisdiction)
- Harnage v. Commissioner of Correction, 141 Conn. App. 9 (addressing partial-judgment finality under Practice Book)
- Marut v. IndyMac Bank, FSB, 132 Conn. App. 763 (summary judgment standard and opposing party's burden)
- Pickman v. Pickman, 6 Conn. App. 271 (elements and factors for undue influence)
- Salvatore v. Hayden, 144 Conn. 437 (undue influence and that capacity/undue influence are fact questions)
- Stanton v. Grigley, 177 Conn. 558 (circumstantial evidence can sustain undue-influence finding)
- Lancaster v. Bank of New York, 147 Conn. 566 (direct evidence of undue influence often unavailable)
- Hospital of Central Connecticut v. Neurosurgical Associates, P.C., 139 Conn. App. 778 (summary judgment ordinarily inappropriate when intent or state of mind implicated)