DocketNumber: (2394)
Citation Numbers: 477 A.2d 158, 2 Conn. App. 251, 1984 Conn. App. LEXIS 632
Judges: Dannehy, Hull, Dupont
Filed Date: 1/31/1984
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
From the decree of the Probate Court for the district of Hartford approving the final account of the conservator of the estate of Edwina C. Graham, the plaintiff, John R. Graham, Jr., appealed to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford.
These facts are undisputed. The plaintiff is the son of Edwina C. Graham. On April 17, 1980, upon the application of the plaintiff to the Probate Court for the district of Hartford, United Bank Trust Company *Page 252 was appointed conservator of the estate of Edwina C. Graham on the ground that Edwina C. Graham was incapable of managing her affairs by reason of "mental illness due to chronic use of drugs."
Thereafter, Edwina C. Graham filed her own application in the Probate Court for the restoration of her estate. That court made an order for due service of and hearing upon her application. Edwina C. Graham and her conservator were both present at the hearing held on November 3, 1981. On that date, the Probate Court decreed that Edwina C. Graham had been restored to her capacity and, by order of the court, the remaining portion of her estate was restored to her. Upon the termination of the conservatorship, the conservator was ordered to file its final account.
No appeal was taken from the Probate Court decree finding Edwina C. Graham capable of managing her own affairs and ordering that the conservatorship of her estate be terminated. Neither the plaintiff nor anyone on behalf of Edwina C. Graham objected to the Probate Court or to her conservator concerning the order restoring her estate.
Notice of the hearing on the conservator's final account was duly served on the plaintiff, and both he and his mother attended the hearing held on February 9, 1982. Proceedings in Probate Courts are generally somewhat informal. Thomas v. Arafeh,
From the sparse record in this case, it plainly appears that the final account of her conservator was not allowed until after Edwina C. Graham had been restored to her capacity, when what remained of her estate had been restored to her. She was satisfied that her conservator had rendered a proper accounting and was entitled to the compensation for its services allowed by the court. She contradicted what the plaintiff alleged in his motion for appeal from probate and challenged his aggrievement.
On March 8, 1982, the plaintiff filed, in the Probate Court for the district of Hartford, his motion for appeal from the decree of that court, dated February 9, 1982, approving the final account of the conservator of the estate of Edwina C. Graham. The appeal was allowed and made returnable to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford on April 6, 1982. Before the return day, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter because the plaintiff was not an aggrieved party under General Statutes
The only allegations of the motion for appeal filed by the plaintiff in the Probate Court which purported to set forth his interest were that he is the son and heir at law of "the incapable" and is potentially liable for her support. In view of the determination, made on November 3, 1981, that Edwina C. Graham had been restored to capacity, it is at once apparent that the allegation of his mother's incapacity is inaccurate. In any event, this and other inaccuracies have not been brought into question in this appeal.
In an appeal from probate, the Superior Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. It has only the jurisdiction granted to it by statute. Section
Was the plaintiff aggrieved? In Maloney v. Taplin,
There is no error.