Kabel v. Rosen
Citations
- 215 Conn. App. 528
Syllabus
The plaintiff, the nephew of the decedent, appealed from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant R, in her capacity as executrix of the estate of the decedent. The decedent left a detailed, unambiguous will in which she made specific monetary bequests to various individuals and entities. She also directed that R sell her real property and divide the net proceeds among certain of the defendants, namely, her surviving stepsons, S and W, and H, the wife of her deceased stepson. The decedent further specified that 10 percent of her residuary estate should go to the plaintiff and that the remainder should go to S, W, H, and their defendant children in varying percentages. The estate had insufficient funds to satisfy the specific monetary bequests and administrative costs, and, accordingly, the residual beneficiaries, includ- ing the plaintiff, did not receive residuary distributions. The decedent had an individual retirement account valued at more than $2 million that did not pass through the will because it named S, W, and H as designated beneficiaries. The plaintiff commenced this action, alleging that the decedent had mistakenly believed that the retirement account was a probate asset subject to distribution under her will, that she had relied on such mistaken assumption in making the numerous bequests in her will, and that the plaintiff was damaged by her mistaken belief. He argued that the provision of the will that provided for the distribution of the net proceeds from the sale of the decedent's real property should be subject to equitable abatement to fund his claim for monetary dam- ages. On the plaintiff's appeal to this court, held that the trial court did not err in refusing to consider the plaintiff's request for an equitable remedy: the court did not err in failing to adhere to its prior denial of a motion to strike the plaintiff's complaint filed by S, W, and H because, under the law of the case doctrine, the court's interlocutory
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “If the legislature had intended to subordinate a dealer’s priority under section 570A.5(3), it would have expressly said so as it did in subsection (2).”
- “If the legislature had intended to subordinate a dealer’s priority under section 570A.5(3), it would have expressly said so as it did in subsection (2).”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Moll; Cradle; Clark
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.