Skip to main content
· 3/12/2024

O'Sullivan v. Haught

Citations

  • 348 Conn. 625

Syllabus

The plaintiff, the decedent's only child, sought to recover damages from the defendant, the decedent's second husband, for, inter alia, tortious interference with the plaintiff's expected inheritance from the decedent's estate. The decedent had executed a will that left her entire estate to the defendant and expressly disinherited the plaintiff. After the decedent's death, the defendant applied to have that will admitted to probate in the Probate Court. The plaintiff contested the will on various grounds, including undue influence, but the Probate Court rejected those claims and admitted the will to probate. The plaintiff appealed from the Probate Court's decree to the Superior Court, where the appeal was to take the form of a trial de novo pursuant to statute (§ 45a-186). While the probate appeal was pending, the plaintiff filed the present action, which the trial 626 MARCH, 2024 348 Conn. 625 O'Sullivan v. Haught court consolidated with the probate appeal. Thereafter, the defendant moved for summary judgment in the tort action, claiming, inter alia, that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. The trial court, however, denied the motion for summary judgment as to the count alleging tortious interference with the plaintiff's expected inheritance, concluding that the doctrine of collateral estoppel was inapplicable because the plaintiff did not have an adequate opportunity to fully litigate that claim in the Probate Court. The defen- dant appealed to the Appellate Court from the trial court's partial denial of his motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that there was no appealable final judgment. On the granting of certification, the plaintiff appealed to this court. Held that the Appellate Court improperly dismissed the defendant's appeal from the trial court's partial denial of the defendant's motion for sum- mary judgment, and, b

Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Ecker

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced 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.