Moore v. Bryant-Mitchell

Citations

• 234 Conn. App. 378

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 there- from. 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