Moore v. Bryant-MitchellMoore v. Bryant-Mitchell
The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion.
All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
Moore v. Bryant-Mitchell
Syllabus
The plaintiff appealed from the judgment of the Superior Court denying his appeal from the decree of the Probate Court removing him as executor of the estate of the defendant‘s decedent. The plaintiff claimed, inter alia, that the Superior Court improperly limited the scope of its review of his appeal and thus failed to allow him to present evidence to refute the defendant‘s allegations of misconduct against him and to challenge the admission of the decedent‘s will to probate. Held:
The Superior Court did not improperly limit the scope of its review of the plaintiff‘s appeal, as the court‘s jurisdiction extended only to the matter that the plaintiff challenged on appeal, which was the Probate Court decree removing him as the executor of the decedent‘s estate, and the requirement that the Superior Court conduct a trial de novo in a probate appeal did not mean that it could decide matters beyond what was appealed.
This court declined to review the plaintiff‘s inadequately briefed claim that the Superior Court precluded him from presenting evidence to refute the defendant‘s allegations of his misconduct in the administration of the estate, as the plaintiff did not identify any particular evidentiary ruling with respect to his claim or any specific erroneous factual findings that followed therefrom.
The Superior Court did not commit plain error by failing to overrule the Probate Court‘s admission of the decedent‘s will to probate, as the plaintiff did not appeal from the admission of the will to probate, and, thus, the Superior Court could not have overruled or reviewed the merits of a Probate Court decree that was beyond the scope of what was before it on appeal.
This court declined to review the plaintiff‘s claims that the Superior Court abused its discretion by quashing subpoenas he issued to nonparties who had knowledge about the execution and filing of the decedent‘s will, the plaintiff having abandoned those claims due to inadequate briefing.
This court declined to review the plaintiff‘s claim that the Superior Court abused its discretion by holding him responsible for the failures of attorneys he retained to assist with the administration of the estate, as he did not cite any legal authority or provide any legal analysis in support of his claim, which would fail even if it were reviewed, the Superior Court having found that the plaintiff was unable to administer the estate, failed to cooperate and follow the legal advice given by the attorneys he had engaged as counsel for the estate, was unwilling to comply with court orders and was motivated to pursue his self-interest over the interests of the estate and its
Moore v. Bryant-Mitchell
Procedural History
Appeal from the decision of the Probate Court for the district of Norwalk-Wilton removing the plaintiff as executor of the estate of the defendant‘s decedent, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk and tried to the court, Hon. Edward T. Krumeich II, judge trial referee; judgment denying the appeal, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Affirmed.
Herbert I. Mendelsohn, with whom was John T. Irick, pro hac vice, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Lindsay T. Reed, for the appellee (defendant).
Opinion
SEELEY, J. The plaintiff, Larry Allen Moore, appeals1 from the judgment of the Superior Court removing him as the executor of the estate of the decedent, Clifton Dewayne Bryant. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the Superior Court, in adjudicating his appeal from the decree of the Probate Court granting a petition filed by the defendant, Chelsea Bryant-Mitchell, to remove him as executor, improperly (1) limited the scope of its review to the Probate Court‘s removal of the plaintiff as executor and, as a result, failed to allow the plaintiff to present evidence (a) to refute the allegations concerning the plaintiff‘s alleged misconduct in administering the estate and (b) to challenge the decedent‘s will
Moore v. Bryant-Mitchell
that had been admitted to probate, (2) failed to overrule the Probate Court‘s admission of the will to probate, and (3) prevented him from introducing evidence challenging the authenticity of the will. He also claims that the Superior Court abused its discretion in holding him, as a layperson, responsible for the failures of the attorneys he had retained on behalf of the estate to assist with the administration of the estate.2 We affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.
The following facts, as found by the Superior Court or established by the record, and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. The decedent
The will was admitted to probate,4 and, on April 9, 2020, the plaintiff was appointed executor of the dece-
Moore v. Bryant-Mitchell
dent‘s estate by a decree of the Probate Court. On June 3, 2020, the decedent‘s former business partner, Steven G. Ferguson, petitioned the Probate Court, claiming that he had a 50 percent ownership interest in the company. Following an evidentiary hearing, the Probate Court “issued a decree . . . in which it determined that, on the basis of the company‘s operating agreement . . . [Ferguson] and the decedent‘s estate were equal owners of the company, each holding a 50 percent interest.”5 Moore v. Ferguson, 232 Conn. App. 787, 799, ___ A.3d ___ (2025).
On June 4, 2021, the defendant filed a petition with the Probate Court to remove the plaintiff as executor of the estate. In the petition,6 the defendant asserted that the plaintiff should be removed as executor due
Moore v. Bryant-Mitchell
to issues relating to his (1) failure to complete an estate accounting and comply with a court order concerning the accounting, (2) self-dealing as a tenant of the property, (3) failure to manage the property, (4) failure to communicate with the defendant, (5) conversion of a 2011 Range Rover vehicle owned by the estate
The plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court, pursuant to
Moore v. Bryant-Mitchell
appeal. In doing so, the court concluded: “While [the plaintiff] was executor [of the estate], he displayed an inability to administer the estate [and] an unwillingness to comply with court orders and to cooperate with Mary [E.] Hoyt . . . the accountant appointed by the Probate Court to prepare the inventory and accounting [for the estate] that [the plaintiff] failed to prepare. [The plaintiff] failed to cooperate with and follow legal advice given by [the] attorneys he engaged as counsel for the estate. Seven attorneys represented [the plaintiff] [in his capacity] as executor during the less than two years [he] served as executor. [The plaintiff‘s] conduct demonstrated [that] he lacked the competence, understanding and temperament to continue as executor.9
“[The plaintiff] also has serious conflicts of interest with the estate that are irreconcilable with his continuing as executor. [The plaintiff‘s] [barbershop] business occupied a portion of the property . . . which was the principal asset of the estate, on which he failed to pay rent. [The plaintiff] testified that he had a deal with [the decedent] that he was not obligated to pay rent and could use income from the property to pay the mortgage and for related maintenance and expenses.10 When [the] Probate
Moore v. Bryant-Mitchell
explaining that, because [the probate judge] recused himself in the same order in which he directed the rental payment, [the plaintiff] felt he need not obey the order. [The plaintiff] transferred title to an automobile that was an estate asset to himself without payment to the estate.11 [The plaintiff] used estate assets and income to support properties in which he had an interest or claimed to have an interest.12 [The plaintiff] testified [that] he also used his personal funds to support [the] propert[y] and has made claims against the estate for reimbursement. [The plaintiff] also testified that he has an interest in [the company], the main asset of the estate, which he testified [he] was supposed to manage and control in accordance with [the decedent‘s] wishes as property manager, executor and trustee of a testamentary trust.13
“The most egregious conflict of interest, by far, is that [the plaintiff] asserts that he has an interest in
Moore v. Bryant-Mitchell
estate assets that are contradictory to the terms of the will admitted to probate under which he was appointed executor. [The plaintiff] testified [that] he went to [the decedent‘s] house after his death and removed the . . . will . . . from the place where [the decedent] had put it and filed the will with the Bridgeport Probate Court. When there was a problem with ‘paperwork’ in connection with the filing of the will, according to the [court] clerk, he engaged Attorney Nathaniel W. Shipp to assist him [with] admit[ting] the will [to] probate, hav[ing] [the plaintiff] appointed executor and . . . carry[ing] out his duties as executor. [The plaintiff] testified that he had not seen the will admitted to probate but later learned someone had ‘edited’ the will from the version he had attempted to file with the Bridgeport Probate Court after [the decedent‘s] death. According to [the plaintiff], the will had been ‘edited’ to remove him as residuary beneficiary and to substitute . . . [the defendant], and to omit the testamentary trust for the decedent‘s two daughters
“The evidence was clear and convincing that [the plaintiff] consistently acted in his own self-interest
Moore v. Bryant-Mitchell
rather than for the benefit of the [estate] beneficiaries . . . engaged in self-dealing with assets of the estate . . . has irreconcilable conflicts of interest with the estate . . . [and] failed persistently and is unfit to administer the estate effectively. The delays in the administration of the estate were often attributed to [the plaintiff] and his inability to carry out the duties of executor. [The plaintiff] has been unwilling and unable to work with the Probate Court, the attorneys for the estate, the accountant engaged to assist in estate administration, and the principal beneficiary.15 [The plaintiff] misunderstood his role as fiduciary, would not heed advice from his attorneys or comply with court orders, conflated his personal interests with the interests of the estate and acted primarily out of his self-interest to ensure his personal control of estate assets. [The plaintiff] has acted to undermine the decedent‘s estate plan expressed in the will and to promote a competing will that benefits him at the expense of the decedent‘s widow and children. The court finds that the defendant has met her burden of proving that removing [the plaintiff] as executor was required ‘to protect against harm caused by the continuing depletion or mismanagement of an estate.’ . . . [Emphasis omitted.] [In re Probate Appeal of McIntyre, 207 Conn. App. 433, 448, 263 A.3d 925 (2021)].16
“[The plaintiff] was properly removed as executor pursuant to [
Moore v. Bryant-Mitchell
neglect to perform the duties of the fiduciary‘s trust and waste of the estate in his charge and . . . because of his unfitness, unwillingness and persistent failure to administer the estate effectively, and [as a result of] the court‘s
As a preliminary matter, we begin by setting forth the standard of review. “In appeals in which the trial court has ruled on a probate appeal de novo, we treat our scope of review as we would with any other Superior Court proceeding. . . . When the court has made factual findings, we defer to those findings unless they are clearly erroneous. . . . A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when there is no evidence in the record to support it . . . or when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. . . . With regard to matters of law, however . . . our review is plenary.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Salce v. Cardello, 210 Conn. App. 66, 72–73, 269 A.3d 889 (2022), aff‘d, 348 Conn. 90, 301 A.3d 1031 (2023). “Whether grounds exist for an executor‘s removal is a question addressed to the sound discretion of the Probate Court.
of such fiduciary‘s trust, wastes the estate in such fiduciary‘s charge, or fails to furnish any additional or substitute probate bond ordered by the court . . . [or] (3) because of unfitness, unwillingness or persistent failure of the fiduciary to administer the estate effectively, the court determines that removal of the fiduciary best serves the interests of the beneficiaries . . . .”
Moore v. Bryant-Mitchell
. . . On appeal from probate, the trial court may exercise the same discretion de novo, reviewing the facts relating to the propriety of removal without regard to the Probate Court‘s decision.18 . . . Our task, then, is to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion . . . .” (Footnote added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Saccu‘s Appeal from Probate, 97 Conn. App. 710, 713-14, 905 A.2d 1285 (2006).
I
The plaintiff claims that the Superior Court improperly limited the scope of its review with respect to his probate appeal and, as a result, failed to allow him to present evidence (1) to refute the allegations concerning his alleged misconduct in administering the estate and (2) to challenge the decedent‘s will that had been admitted to probate. In particular, he asserts that, “although [his probate appeal] was brought to the [Superior Court] as an appeal of the Probate Court‘s decree removing [him] as executor of the [decedent‘s] estate, its inquiry, in its role as a court with coextensive jurisdiction [to] the Probate Court and hearing the appeal as a trial de novo, should not have ended there.” According to the plaintiff, this resulted in the court‘s “arriv[ing] at erroneous findings of fact that could have been avoided had the . . . court allowed [him] to present evidence that called into question many of the defendant‘s allegation[s] relative to [his] alleged misconduct
Moore v. Bryant-Mitchell
in his attempts to administer the estate, including the admission of the . . . will [to] probate
“An appeal from a Probate Court to the Superior Court is not an ordinary civil action. . . . When entertaining an appeal from an order or decree of a Probate Court, the Superior Court takes the place of and sits as the court of probate. . . . In ruling on a probate appeal, the Superior Court exercises the powers, not of a constitutional court of general or common law jurisdiction, but of a Probate Court. . . .
“The function of the Superior Court in appeals from a Probate Court is to take jurisdiction of the order or decree appealed from and to try that issue de novo. . . . Thereafter, upon consideration of all evidence presented on the appeal which would have been admissible in the [P]robate [C]ourt, the [S]uperior [C]ourt should exercise the same power of judgment which the [P]robate [C]ourt possessed and decide the appeal as an original proposition unfettered by, and ignoring, the result reached in the [P]robate [C]ourt.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Wolfel v. Wolfel, 218 Conn. App. 760, 766-67, 292 A.3d 1261, cert. denied, 348 Conn. 902, 301 A.3d 528 (2023).
“[A] probate appeal . . . brings to the Superior Court only the order appealed from. The order remains intact until modified by a judgment of the Superior Court after a hearing de novo on the issues presented for review by the reasons of appeal. . . . The Superior Court may not consider or adjudicate issues beyond the scope of those proper for determination by the order or decree attacked. The Superior Court, therefore, cannot enlarge the scope of the appeal.” (Emphasis
Moore v. Bryant-Mitchell
in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Probate Appeal of McIntyre, supra, 207 Conn. App. 440.
In the present case, therefore, the Superior Court had jurisdiction over only the matter that was appealed by the plaintiff, namely, the Probate Court decree removing him as the executor of the decedent‘s estate. To the extent that the plaintiff contends on appeal that the Superior Court was not limited in that respect, the claim lacks merit. The plaintiff confuses the nature of the de novo proceeding before the Superior Court. Although the Superior Court, in an appeal from a decree of the Probate court, must conduct a trial de novo and decide the appeal on the basis of the evidence presented, unrestrained by the Probate Court‘s decision, that does not mean that a Superior Court can decide matters beyond what has been appealed. On the contrary, case law is clear that “[a] probate appeal brings to the Superior Court only the order appealed from.” (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.
In connection with this claim, the plaintiff also asserts that the court improperly precluded him from presenting evidence to refute the allegations concerning his alleged misconduct in administering the estate and to challenge the decedent‘s will that had been admitted to probate. We decline to review this claim. “As our Supreme Court recently has stated, it is the responsibility of parties, not an appellate court, ‘to clearly identify how and where in the record the claim that the party is raising on appeal was preserved for review and where in the record the trial court‘s ruling on the claim may be found . . . .‘” (Emphasis in original.) State ex rel. Dunn v. Burton, 229 Conn. App. 267, 294, 327 A.3d 982 (2024), quoting Dur-A-Flex, Inc. v. Dy, 349 Conn. 513, 589-90, 321 A.3d 295 (2024); see also Aspiazu v. Orgera, 205 Conn. 623, 636–37 n.5, 535 A.2d 338 (1987) (“[w]hen raising evidentiary issues on appeal, all briefs should
Moore v. Bryant-Mitchell
identify clearly what evidence was excluded or admitted, where the trial counsel objected and preserved his rights and why there was error“).
Although the plaintiff asserts that the court improperly precluded him from presenting certain evidence, which resulted in the court‘s making erroneous factual findings, he does not identify any particular evidentiary ruling made by the court with respect to this claim. He also has not identified the specific erroneous factual findings that followed. In all, his appellate briefing on this aspect of his claim consists of a single short paragraph, without citation to relevant authority regarding evidentiary rulings on the admission of evidence. Thus, in light of the plaintiff‘s failure “to clearly identify . . . where in the record the trial court‘s ruling on the claim may be found“; (emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted) State ex rel. Dunn v. Burton, supra, 229 Conn. App. 294; and because he has not adequately briefed this claim; see, e.g., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Bissonnette, 232 Conn. App. 501, 519, 337 A.3d 1 (2025) (declining to review claim as inadequately briefed when totality of discussion of claim was contained in one short paragraph that was devoid of any legal citations or analysis); we decline to review this claim. See also Murthy v. Missouri, 603 U.S. 43, 67 n.7, 144 S. Ct. 1972, 219 L. Ed. 2d 604 (2024) (“[j]udges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried [in the record]” (internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Tocco, 120 Conn. App. 768, 786-87, 993 A.2d 989 (“this court is not an advocate for any party; it would be beyond the proper role of this court in resolving the issues raised on appeal to sift through the voluminous record before us and speculate as to the specific evidence at issue in the present claim“), cert. denied, 297 Conn. 917, 996 A.2d 279 (2010).
Moore v. Bryant-Mitchell
II
The plaintiff‘s next claim is that the Superior Court committed plain error19 by failing to overrule the Probate Court‘s admission of the will into probate despite “obvious and facial defects in the will” and an accompanying Probate Court form, PC-200.20 The plaintiff asserts that this resulted in a manifest injustice to him and “the integrity of the entire estate administration process . . . being compromised.” In support of this claim, the plaintiff states that the decree of the Probate
The contours of the Superior Court‘s jurisdiction over an appeal from a decree of the Probate Court are well
Moore v. Bryant-Mitchell
established. “In a probate appeal . . . the Superior Court‘s jurisdiction is statutory and limited to the order appealed from. . . . The Superior Court cannot consider or adjudicate issues beyond the scope of those proper for determination by the order or decree attacked. This is so even with the consent of the parties to the appeal because the court has subject matter jurisdiction limited only to the order or decree appealed from. . . . [The Superior Court] tries the questions presented to it de novo, but in so doing it is . . . exercising a special and limited jurisdiction conferred on it by the statute authorizing appeals from probate.” (Citation omitted; emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Eder‘s Appeal from Probate, 177 Conn. App. 163, 168-69, 171 A.3d 506 (2017). Simply put, it has long been a key principle of our jurisprudence that a probate appeal “brings to the Superior Court only the order [or decree] appealed from. . . . The Superior Court, therefore, cannot enlarge the scope of the appeal.” (Citations omitted; emphasis in original.) Silverstein‘s Appeal from Probate, supra, 13 Conn. App. 54; see also Stevens’ Appeal from Probate, 157 Conn. 576, 581, 255 A.2d 632 (1969).
In the present case, the plaintiff‘s complaint states that he is appealing the “February 17, 2022 . . . [d]ecree granting a motion filed by the defendant . . . removing [him] from [his] role as executor” of the estate. The plaintiff did not appeal from the April 9, 2020 decree of the Probate Court admitting the will to probate. As we have stated, the Superior Court cannot “enlarge the scope of the appeal.” Silverstein‘s Appeal from Probate, supra, 13 Conn. App. 54; see also Marshall v. Marshall, 71 Conn. App. 565, 571, 803 A.2d 919 (concluding that Superior Court was without jurisdiction to consider “issue of whether counsel committed misconduct,” as “the plaintiff appealed from the admission of the will to probate and the approval of the defendant
Moore v. Bryant-Mitchell
as executrix” and, thus, issue of whether counsel committed misconduct went beyond scope of “the decree attacked in the appeal“), cert. denied, 261 Conn. 941, 808 A.2d 1132 (2002); see also In re Probate Appeal of McIntyre, supra, 207 Conn. App. 439-40.
Because the Superior Court could not have “overruled” or reviewed the merits of a Probate Court decree that was not properly before it on appeal, the plaintiff‘s claim of plain error fails.
III
The plaintiff‘s next claim is that the court abused its discretion by preventing him from introducing evidence challenging the authenticity of the will. Specifically, he argues that the court abused its discretion when it “quashed the subpoenas of key witnesses who possessed direct knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the execution
The following additional facts and procedural history are relevant to this claim. Prior to the commencement of trial, the plaintiff subpoenaed several nonparties, including Diane Ely, Stephanie Bergamo and Libby
Moore v. Bryant-Mitchell
Scott, staff members of the Probate Court; Christine D. Benham, the attorney who prepared the will; Michael W. Benham and Teresa Carasone, the witnesses to the will‘s execution; and Ferguson. Three motions to quash were subsequently filed on behalf of these nonparties, one for the three Probate Court staff members (probate staff motion), another for the individuals involved in the preparation and execution of the will (Benham motion) and one as to Ferguson (Ferguson motion).22 Ultimately, the court quashed the subpoenas as to the aforementioned nonparties.23
“[O]ur appellate courts repeatedly have recognized that [w]e are not required to review claims that are inadequately briefed. . . . We consistently have held that [a]nalysis, rather than mere abstract assertion, is required in order to avoid abandoning an issue by failure to brief the issue properly. . . . [F]or this court judiciously and efficiently to consider claims of error raised
Moore v. Bryant-Mitchell
on appeal . . . the parties must clearly and fully set forth their arguments in their briefs. We do not reverse the judgment of a trial court on the basis of challenges to its rulings that have not been adequately briefed. . . . The parties may not merely cite a legal principle
We do not reach the merits of the plaintiff‘s claims as to the Benham motion and the probate staff motion because we deem those claims abandoned due to inadequate briefing. The plaintiff‘s appellate briefing on this issue is completely devoid of any citation to legal authority or substantive legal analysis. The plaintiff‘s principal appellate brief contains five paragraphs discussing this issue, four of which are only one sentence long. None of these five paragraphs includes a single citation to any form of legal authority. Moreover, the brief does not set forth the standard of review concerning a trial court‘s granting of a motion to quash, nor does it include relevant case law setting forth the legal principles that apply to such a claim. The brief is also completely bereft of any legal analysis discussing similar precedent or applying pertinent legal principles to
Moore v. Bryant-Mitchell
the facts of this case. The plaintiff‘s appellate reply brief is similarly deficient in that its discussion of this issue contains no citations to legal authority or substantive legal analysis whatsoever.25
Accordingly, we deem the plaintiff‘s claims concerning the court‘s rulings on the Benham motion and probate staff motion to be abandoned due to inadequate briefing.
The plaintiff‘s final claim on appeal is that the court abused its discretion by holding him responsible for the failures of the attorneys he had retained on behalf of the estate to assist with the administration of the estate. According to the plaintiff, he had been ordered by the Probate Court to perform certain tasks by dead-
Moore v. Bryant-Mitchell
lines set by the court, including completing an inventory of the property of the decedent, filing a tax return for the estate, and settling the estate. He contends that he engaged the services of a number of attorneys to assist in completing those tasks but that those attorneys either were unable or unwilling to do the necessary work to complete the tasks and that he was left alone, as a layperson, to obtain the necessary information. He asserts that, “[a]t all times during the administration of the estate for which [he] was responsible, he was denied access to any of the sources of information necessary to comply with” the orders of the Probate Court. We decline to review this claim.
Aside from setting forth these assertions, the plaintiff has not cited any legal authority or provided any legal analysis in support of this claim. As we already have stated in this opinion, “[w]e are not required to review claims that are inadequately briefed. . . . We consistently have held that [a]nalysis, rather than mere abstract assertion, is required in order to avoid abandoning an issue by failure to brief the issue properly. . . . [F]or this court judiciously and efficiently to consider claims of error raised on appeal . . . the parties must clearly and fully set forth their arguments in their briefs. We do not reverse the judgment of a trial court on the basis of challenges to its rulings that have not been adequately briefed. . . . Where the parties cite no law and provide no analysis of their claims, we do not review such claims.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Jalbert v. Mulligan, supra, 153 Conn. App. 133.
Even if we were to review this claim, we would conclude, nonetheless, that it fails. In its memorandum of decision, the Superior Court found that, although “[the plaintiff] was executor, he displayed an inability to
Moore v. Bryant-Mitchell
administer the estate, an unwillingness to comply with court orders and to cooperate with . . . Hoyt . . . the accountant appointed by the Probate Court to prepare the inventory and accounting that [the plaintiff] failed to prepare. [The plaintiff] failed to cooperate with and follow legal advice given by attorneys he engaged as counsel for the estate. Seven attorneys represented [the plaintiff] as executor during the less than two years [he] served as executor. [The plaintiff‘s] conduct demonstrated [that] he lacked the competence, understanding and temperament to continue as executor.” The court further found that “[the plaintiff] blamed the seven attorneys who represented him as executor for [his] failure to marshal estate assets and to obtain financial information needed for an accounting. [The plaintiff] explained [that] the attorneys were not willing to help him. [The plaintiff] testified [that] he fired three of these attorneys, one had a conflict and withdrew, and two resigned. [The plaintiff] needed competent probate counsel to function as executor because he lacked the knowledge and skill to function as fiduciary for the estate. The court acknowledges that some of the delays resulted from the [COVID-19] pandemic, but [the plaintiff‘s] failures may not be excused for that reason but, rather, reflect his approach, which was motivated to pursue his self-interest over the interests of the estate and its beneficiaries.”26
Moore v. Bryant-Mitchell
For example, the court‘s finding that, during his tenure as executor, the plaintiff acted improperly and against the interests of the estate in various ways was supported, in part, by its finding that the plaintiff used his powers as executor to transfer an asset owned by the estate, a 2011 Range Rover valued at $9559, to himself without making any payment to the estate, despite the lack of any such bequest in the will. It also was supported by the court‘s finding that the plaintiff had disobeyed various court orders, including orders to pay rent monthly to the company for his tenancy at the property and to provide Hoyt with the records necessary to complete the estate accounting, and that he “used estate assets” and diverted from the estate rental income that was owed to it and, instead, used that income “to support” a property in Bridgeport that was bequeathed to him in the will.
Furthermore, the court‘s finding that the plaintiff had retained seven attorneys in two years to assist him with fulfilling his duties as executor, but still failed to do so, along with Hoyt‘s testimony describing the estate as a “[v]ery simple” one, supports the court‘s conclusion that the plaintiff was responsible for his failure to perform his duties as executor. The plaintiff‘s argument to the contrary—that he was hamstrung as executor by the attorneys he hired—is unavailing in light of the court‘s finding that the plaintiff also failed to cooperate with Hoyt. The Probate Court ordered the plaintiff to provide Hoyt with the records necessary to complete an accounting for the estate after he had failed to do the same, but he never complied with the order. The fact that the plaintiff was unable or unwilling to obtain those records for Hoyt and to work effectively with any of the attorneys he retained supports the court‘s determination that he was unfit to administer the estate
Moore v. Bryant-Mitchell
because he lacked the “knowledge and skill” to fulfill his duties as executor without the assistance of counsel.27
The judgment is affirmed.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.