Vecchiarino v. Potter
Citations
- 223 Conn. App. 676
Syllabus
The defendant E, a former romantic partner of the decedent, M, appealed to this court from the judgments of the Superior Court approving a settlement agreement that resolved a dispute involving the beneficiaries of a contested will and M's heirs-at-law. Prior to the termination of their romantic relationship, E had been named a beneficiary in wills executed by M in 2003 and 2010. M died in 2016, and the plaintiff, a business partner of M, petitioned the Probate Court to admit M's 2014 will. E was neither a named beneficiary under the 2014 will, nor was she an heir-at-law. After the petition to admit the 2014 will was filed, certain of M's heirs-at-law objected to its admission and to the appointment of the plaintiff as the administrator of the estate. Thereafter, the Probate Court issued a written decree in which it concluded that, inter alia, M had been unduly influenced in executing the contested 2014 will and that, therefore, it should not be admitted to probate. The plaintiff and another named beneficiary of the contested will filed separate appeals to the Superior Court challenging this decree, which were subsequently consolidated. During the pendency of the claims in probate, E filed an appearance in the Probate Court as a creditor of M's estate on the basis of claims that she had unsuccessfully brought against M in a civil action while he was still alive. The Probate Court denied her creditor claims on the grounds that they were barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel, and she appealed to the Superior Court, which dismissed the appeal. E did not petition the Probate Court to admit either of the wills from 2003 or 2010 as the valid and operative will of the decedent. Instead, she filed a letter with the Probate Court and attached two Probate Court forms with copies of the 2003 and 2010 wills. Thereafter, all beneficiaries named in the 2014 will and the heirs-at-law who contested the will entered into an agreement in full compliance with the provisions o
Judges: Prescott; Elgo; Bishop
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.