Rutherford v. Slagle
Citations
- 352 Conn. 27
Syllabus
The plaintiff, who, along with the defendant, was a cotrustee of the dece- dent's trust, appealed to the Superior Court from the decree of the Probate Court, which had granted the defendant's petition to construe the trust and ordered that the trust estate be distributed in equal shares to the decedent's children, including the plaintiff. In his probate appeal, the plaintiff challenged the Probate Court's decree ''in toto'' and urged the Superior Court to overrule the decree, and, under his reasons for the appeal, raised two claims concern- ing discovery in the Probate Court. The defendant thereafter moved for summary judgment, which the Superior Court granted, reasoning that, because the plaintiff's reasons for the appeal were limited to issues regarding discovery in the Probate Court, and because there was no dispute that the plaintiff did not make any discovery request or that the Probate Court did not issue any orders regarding discovery, there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding the substance of the plaintiff's appeal. The plaintiff appealed from the Superior Court's judgment, claiming that summary judg- ment is not an available or appropriate remedy in a probate appeal and that, even if it is, the Superior Court improperly failed to engage in a de novo consideration of the issue resolved by the Probate Court concerning the proper distribution of the trust estate. Held: 12 Because our conclusion is dispositive of the present appeal, we do not address the remaining certified issues. See High Watch Recovery Center, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, supra, 348 Conn. 956. 28 MAY, 2025 352 Conn. 27 Rutherford v. Slagle The term ''any action'' in the rule of practice (§ 17-44) allowing any party in a civil matter to move for summary judgment includes probate appeals in the Superior Court, and, accordingly, the plaintiff could not prevail on his claim that summary judgment was not available in a probate appeal. The genealogy of Practice Book § 17-44, a
Judges: Mullins; D’Auria; Ecker; Alexander; Dannehy; Bright
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.