Salce v. Cardello
Citations
- 348 Conn. 90
Syllabus
The plaintiff, who, along with the defendant, was a beneficiary of a will and a trust executed by their mother, M, appealed to the trial court from the decision of the Probate Court, which declined the plaintiff's request to enforce against the defendant the in terrorem, or no-contest, clauses contained in M's will and trust. The in terrorem clauses provided that, if a beneficiary objected in any manner to any act taken or proposed to be taken in good faith by any fiduciary, or filed any creditor's claim against the estate, that person would forfeit his or her rights as a benefi- ciary under the respective instrument. After M died, G became the executor of M's estate and the trustee of the trust. Subsequently, the defendant and her attorney became aware of two mistakes that G appar- ently made in connection with a certain tax return that he had filed on behalf of the estate. Specifically, G mistakenly listed a bank account that belonged solely to the defendant as an estate asset, and he improp- erly inflated the value of the estate and increased the beneficiaries' tax burdens by failing to include certain deductions. Although the defendant and her attorney brought these errors to G's attention, G declined to amend the tax return or to make the deductions unless the Probate Court instructed him to do so. The defendant then filed with the Probate Court a request for a hearing on those issues, but she later withdrew the request for unknown reasons. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a complaint in the Probate Court, seeking to enforce the in terrorem clauses, which he alleged the defendant had violated by filing her request for a hearing. The Probate Court determined, inter alia, that the defendant had not violated the in terrorem clauses and ordered G to remove the bank account that belonged to the defendant from the accounting of the estate's assets. The plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court, which con- ducted a trial de novo and found, inter alia, that the defendant
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- ‘‘[i]n areas [in which] the legislature has spoken . . . the primary responsibility for formulating public policy must remain with the legislature’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Ecker; Alexander
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
3 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
34 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- TransUnion LLC v. RamirezSupreme Court· 2021-06-25· cited 3,213×
- Sheets v. Teddy's Frosted Foods, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1980-01-22· cited 532×
- Morris v. Hartford Courant Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1986-08-05· cited 432×
- Daley v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1999-08-03· cited 171×
- Greenwich Trust Co. v. TysonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1942-07-01· cited 66×
- Andrews v. GorbySupreme Court of Connecticut· 1996-05-14· cited 58×
- McLendon v. McLendonTex. App. Ct., 5th Dist. (Dallas)· 1993-08-17· cited 53×
- In re Joshua S.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2002-05-14· cited 45×
- State v. New England Health Care Employees UnionSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2004-09-14· cited 34×
- Plumleigh v. FerberCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1998-09-15· cited 31×
- Jobe v. Commissioner of CorrectionSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2020-02-18· cited 30×
- Corcoran v. Department of Social ServicesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2004-11-09· cited 28×
- Russell v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.Supreme Court of South Carolina· 2006-07-24· cited 22×
- Sinclair v. SinclairSupreme Court of Georgia· 2008-10-27· cited 19×
- Dainton v. WatsonWyoming Supreme Court· 1983-02-11· cited 19×
- HH East Parcel, LLC v. Handy & Harman, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-06-03· cited 19×
- In Re Estate of WojtalewiczAppellate Court of Illinois· 1981-02-13· cited 17×
- Griffin v. SturgesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1944-12-21· cited 16×
- Priore v. HaigSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2022-09-07· cited 16×
- Houston EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1952-06-24· cited 12×
Other cases named Salce v. Cardello
1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.
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.