DocketNumber: No. CV95 01494144
Citation Numbers: 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 10437, 23 Conn. L. Rptr. 144
Judges: KARAZIN, J.
Filed Date: 9/9/1998
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
Mr. Coppola argues that the Probate Court violated his constitutionally guaranteed right to due process of law when it failed to give him notice of its decree accepting and approving the final account of the Administratrix of the Estate of his son, Anthony M. Coppola. The plaintiff argues that "[w]hile the Connecticut Probate Practice Book does not specifically call for notice to be given of the entry of a decree accepting a final accounting, the Connecticut Supreme Court has implied such a requirement" in Kron v. Thelen,
General Statutes §
However, "[e]ach case turns on its own facts." Striebeck v.Ackerson, Superior Court, Docket No. 033531. In Striebeck v.CT Page 10439Ackerson, Superior Court, Docket No. 033531, the Court announced its decision at the end of the hearing on the final accounting and gave notice to counsel of record, namely the attorney for the estate who was the only attorney who appeared at the hearing. The Court declined to extend the holding of Kron v. Thelen to the case before it because the plaintiff, a beneficiary under the decedent's will, "had proper notice of the hearing which provided her with an opportunity to be heard or have counsel appear on her behalf, but having failed to exercise her right to intervene in the proceedings she cannot argue ex post facto that she must be given notice of the probate court's decision." Id.
Similarly, in this case, Mr. Coppola had notice of the hearing scheduled for June 28, 1995 on the Final Account. (Stipulation of Facts, ¶ 6.) In addition, Mr. Coppola's attorney, Paul D. Shapero, J. filed an appearance on July 11, 1995 on Mr. Coppola's behalf with the Probate Court and thereafter received copies of the Final Account. (Stipulation of Facts, ¶ 8.). Although Mr. Coppola had notice of the approval of the final account before the thirty day appeal period ended on July 28, 1995, he did not file an appeal. Therefore, Kron should not be extended to cover the situation here. The appeal of the Probate Court's decision to deny Mr. Coppola's second motion for reconsideration of the decree accepting and approving the final account is dismissed.
KARAZIN, J.