SC20701
- Salce v. Cardello (“In this certified appeal, we consider the extent
to which in terrorem, or no-contest, clauses in will and trust documents are
enforceable against a beneficiary who has challenged certain aspects of the
performance of a fiduciary, namely, the executor of the will or the trustee of
the trust. The plaintiff, John Salce, appeals, upon our grant of his petition
for certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which affirmed
the trial court’s judgment for the defendant, Joan Cardello, dismissing his
probate appeal. See Salce v. Cardello, 210 Conn. App. 66, 68, 82, 269 A.3d 889
(2022). On appeal, the plaintiff principally contends that the Appellate Court
incorrectly concluded that enforcement of the in terrorem clauses in the
decedent’s will and trust agreement against the defendant would violate public
policy when she challenged the executor’s refusal (1) to remove her personal
bank account from the estate’s Connecticut estate and gift tax return, and (2)
to deduct the outstanding mortgages from the value of the estate on the return.
Consistent with this court’s venerable decisions in South Norwalk Trust Co. v.
St. John, 92 Conn. 168, 101 A. 961 (1917), and Griffin v. Sturges, 131 Conn.
471, 40 A.2d 758 (1944), because the defendant’s actions were based in good
faith, we conclude that enforcement of the in terrorem clauses in the present
case would violate the public policy embodied by our statutes requiring probate
courts to supervise fiduciaries. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the
Appellate Court.”)