2011 Developments in Connecticut Estate and Probate Law
| Publication year | 2021 |
| Pages | 132 |
86 CBJ 132. 2011 DEVELOPMENTS IN CONNECTICUT ESTATE AND PROBATE LAW
Volume 86, No. 2, Pg. 132
June 2012
This Article provides a summary of recent developments impacting Connecticut estate planning and probate practice. Part I discusses 2011 legislative developments. Part II surveys selected 2011 case law relevant to the field.
The only significant legislation in 2011 was tax legislation that lowered the Connecticut estate and gift tax exemptions back to $2 million.(fn1) Although the relevant legislation, Public Act 11-6, was signed by Governor Dannel Malloy on May 4, 2011, the estate and gift tax provisions apply retroactively to decedents dying or gifts made on or after January 1, 2011.(fn2 )The new tax rate on cumulate transfers between $2 million and $3.6 million is 7.2%, matching the lowest rate in effect under prior law.(fn3) Thereafter, the rate rises progressively until it reaches a top rate of 12% for the portion over $10.1 million.(fn4)
This new legislation reverses the effect of prior legislation which had raised these exemptions to $3.5 million as of January 2010. One of the justifications for this prior $3.5 million exemption had been to coordinate the federal and state estate tax exemptions, a goal thwarted by Congress' decision not to extend the 2009 estate tax regime for 2010 and beyond.(fn5)
A. Probate Litigation
1. Discovery
In In re Probate Appeal of Cadle Company,(fn6) a consolidated appeal involving the Cadle Company ("Cadle") and the Estate of F. Francis D'Addario, the Appellate Court issued an opinion likely to have wide-ranging impact. In this noteworthy decision, the Appellate Court held that a Probate Court has jurisdiction to permit an unsecured creditor of an estate to conduct broad discovery into complex management and business operation of estate assets, including the business judgment of the executors. However, the Court's opinion invited reconsideration insofar as the Court indicated that it only reached this holding by deferring to a statute it considered potentially unconstitutional.
The underlying dispute concerned the executor's interim accounting for a decedent's estate. Cadle, an unsecured creditor of the estate, objected to the accounting and sought broad discovery in an effort to pursue its objection. The Probate Court issued an order permitting Cadle to undertake broad discovery, limited only by the rules of practice applicable to ordinary civil procedure.(fn7) Both parties appealed this ruling.(fn8)
On appeal, the Superior Court recognized a Probate Court's general power to authorize discovery. However, the Superior Court ruled that the breadth of the discovery allowed in this case went beyond the jurisdiction of the Probate Court in accounting matters, which it found "does not extend to the adjudication and review of complex management and business operations of estate assets and the business judgments of the fiduciaries."(fn9) In reaching this result, the Superior Court relied on the 1966 Supreme Court opinion in Carten v. Carten.(fn10) Cadle appealed to the Appellate Court.
The Appellate Court began its review by agreeing with the Superior Court's finding that the Probate Court is a court of limited jurisdiction prescribed by statute and is without jurisdiction to act unless it does so under the circumstances and in the manner prescribed by the enabling legislation.(fn11 )However, it concluded that the Superior Court's reliance on Carten was misplaced insofar as that 1966 holding had been superseded by subsequent legislative action.(fn12) Specifically, in 1997, the General Assembly enacted legislation codified in General Statutes Section 45a-175(g), as follows: "In any action under this section, the Probate Court shall have, in addition to powers pursuant to this section, all of the powers available to a judge of the Superior Court at law and in equity pertaining to matters under this section."(fn13)
The Appellate Court concluded that the plain meaning of this 1997 addition to the statutes overruled Carten.(fn14) As a result, the Appellate Court overruled the Superior Court and reinstated the Probate Court's broad discovery order.(fn15)
The Cadle case has generated significant interest among members of the bar, and further judicial exploration of the issues addressed therein seems inevitable. In fact, the Appellate Court's opinion itself invited additional consideration of the matter. The Court's decision made clear that pursuant to the dictates of General StatutesSection1-2z, it had based its ruling solely on a plain reading of the statute at issue without considering the legislative history of the 1997 Act.(fn16) However, the Appellate Court went on to note in dicta its belief that had General Statutes Section 1-2z not precluded its consideration of the legislative history of Section 45a-175(g), the Court may have reached a different conclusion on the merits.(fn17) The Appellate Court thus posited that provisions enacted by the legislature in General Statutes Section 1-2z may have effectively circumscribed their judicial function of statutory interpretation, a potential violation of the state Constitution's separation of powers clause.(fn18) Despite the Appellate Court's interest in this possibility, the parties did not brief this constitutional issue and thus the Court did not resolve the question.(fn19)
we understand this constitutional issue may be raised in the continuing proceedings in this case and may well come before the Appellate Court, or the Supreme Court, in the future.
2. Timeliness of Appeal
In Oliver v. Oliver,(fn20) the Superior Court granted a defendant's request to dismiss a probate appeal as untimely. The case points out the extent to which practitioners need to be aware of the current procedures for filing probate appeals and to be meticulous in adhering to those procedures.
By way of relevant background, effective October 1, 2007, the General Assembly modified General Statutes Section 45a-186 to provide that an appeal from probate is commenced by filing a complaint directly with the Superior Court.(fn21) Under prior law, the appeal was initiated with the Probate Court rather than the Superior Court.
In the case at bar, the plaintiff admitted that he erroneously filed his appeal using the outdated procedures by filing a motion for appeal with the Probate Court and realized his error long after the deadline for filing in the Superior Court had passed.(fn22) Notwithstanding this clear defect, the plaintiff contended that the Superior Court should apply the accidental failure of suit statute, General Statutes Section 52-592, to extend the applicable appeals period under these circumstances.(fn23) The Superior Court held that this statute does not apply to probate appeals and thus dismissed the plaintiff's untimely appeal.(fn24)
3. Res Judicata
In Morrell v. Morrell,(fn25) the Superior Court dismissed a complaint claiming undue influence, lack of testamentary capacity and fraud in a matter involving the transfer on death designation of a brokerage account.(fn26) The issues of undue influence and lack of testamentary capacity previously had been adjudicated in the defendant's favor in the Probate Court pursuant to that Court's statutory authority to determine title.(fn27) Instead of appealing the Probate Court's decision, the plaintiffs filed a separate action in the Superior Court, restating the allegations of undue influence and lack of capacity and raising the additional issues of actual and constructive fraud.(fn28)
The Superior Court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the action, concluding that notwithstanding the inclusion of additional causes of action, the plaintiffs were effectively seeking to "re-litigate the same issues that were decided by the Probate Court."(fn29) In reaching this result, the Court extensively relied on the 2001 Appellate Court opinion in Lundborg v. Lawler.(fn30)
In Partch v. Caputo,(fn31) the Superior Court denied a motion to dismiss a Superior Court action alleging fraud with respect to the appointment of a conservator. The defendant had been...
To continue reading
Request your trial