JEFFREY A. RUTHERFORD, CO-TRUSTEE v. RICHARD J. SLAGLE, ESQ., CO-TRUSTEE, SC 21066

Judicial District of Fairfield

Probate Appeals; Whether Summary Judgment is a Legally Available Remedy in Probate Appeals; Whether Trial Court Properly Concluded That Defendant is Entitled to Summary Judgment as a Matter of Law. William A. Rutherford ("Grantor") executed a trust ("Trust"), naming himself and his wife, Joyce Rutherford, as co-trustees. Following their deaths, the plaintiff, Jeffrey A. Rutherford, the youngest son of the Grantor, and the defendant, Attorney Richard J. Slagle, became co-trustees of the Trust. The defendant submitted a "Petition to Interpret Trust" (Petition) to the Probate Court, requesting that the Probate Court interpret the terms of the Trust in connection with the distribution of the assets of the Trust. After a hearing, the Probate Court issued a decree on July 22, 2021, ordering, inter alia, that the Trust assets be distributed equally among the Grantor's four children. The plaintiff appealed from the Probate Court's decree to the Superior Court pursuant to General Statutes § 45a-186. In the "reasons for appeal" section of his revised complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the Probate Court erred by not permitting him to complete discovery before holding a hearing and issuing its decree on July 22, 2021, and that such discovery was necessary for him to make an informed decision on proper distribution pursuant to the terms of the Trust. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing, inter alia, that the plaintiff could not establish aggrievement for purposes of § 45a-186 when he did not seek leave of the Probate Court to conduct discovery. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment, noting that the plaintiff failed to allege in his complaint that the Probate Court issued any orders restricting or prohibiting discovery or denied a request to continue the hearing on the Petition. The plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court, and the Supreme Court transferred the appeal to itself pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (c) and Practice Book § 65-1. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that summary judgment is not a legally available remedy in probate appeals because probate appeals are not "actions" within the meaning of Practice Book § 17-44, which provides in relevant part: "In any action . . . any party may move for a summary judgment . . . ." In support of his position, he cites, inter alia, Slattery v. Woodin, 90 Conn. 48, 50 (1915), which held that "[a]ppeals from probate are not 'actions' or 'civil causes or actions between party and party.'" Relatedly, he argues that, because the probate courts cannot grant summary judgments under the Probate Court Rules of Procedure, neither can the Superior Court when it sits as a Probate Court. Alternatively, the plaintiff claims that the trial court erred in granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact remained regarding his appeal of the Probate Court's July 22, 2021 decree. Specifically, the plaintiff claims that the premise upon which the defendant based his motion for summary judgment, namely, that no genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the plaintiff's "reasons for appeal," was misplaced. He contends that his probate appeal was clearly an appeal of the entirety of the Probate Court's July 22, 2021 decree, which in and of itself indicates that there are genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment. He further argues that, even if the issues in his probate appeal were limited to those stated in his "reasons for appeal," there still exist genuine issues of material fact that prevented the issuance of summary judgment in favor of the defendant.