391 A.2d 142 (Conn. 1978), Lambrakos v. Carson

Citation391 A.2d 142, 174 Conn. 482
Opinion JudgeLOISELLE, J.
Party NameMataxia LAMBRAKOS et al. v. James S. CARSON, Executor (ESTATE of Polyxeni A. CHILIS).
AttorneyCharles Henchel, New Haven, Conn., with whom was Morris W. Mendlesohn, New Haven, for appellants (plaintiffs)., Charles G. Albom, New Haven, with whom, on the brief, was Nathan G. Sachs, New Haven, for appellee (defendant)., Alexander Winnick, New Haven, filed a brief as amicus curiae. Charles H...
Judge PanelIn this opinion the other judges concurred. Before HOUSE, C J, and LOISELLE, BOGDANSKI, LONGO and SPEZIALE
Case DateMarch 21, 1978
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

Page 142

391 A.2d 142 (Conn. 1978)

174 Conn. 482

Mataxia LAMBRAKOS et al.

v.

James S. CARSON, Executor (ESTATE of Polyxeni A. CHILIS).

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

March 21, 1978

Argued Dec. 6, 1977.

Page 143

Charles Henchel, New Haven, Conn., with whom was Morris W. Mendlesohn, New Haven, for appellants (plaintiffs).

Charles G. Albom, New Haven, with whom, on the brief, was Nathan G. Sachs, New Haven, for appellee (defendant).

Alexander Winnick, New Haven, filed a brief as amicus curiae.

Before HOUSE, C.J., and LOISELLE, BOGDANSKI, LONGO and SPEZIALE, JJ.

[174 Conn. 483] LOISELLE, Associate Justice.

The plaintiffs appealed to the Superior Court from an order of the Probate Court for the district of New Haven admitting as the last will and testament of the deceased, Polyxeni A. Chilis, an instrument dated January 2, 1974. From a judgment of the Superior Court sustaining the defendant's plea in abatement, the plaintiffs have appealed to this court.

The plaintiffs are, as their motion for appeal from probate sets forth, heirs of the decedent testatrix. At the time of their appeal, a separate appeal from the same probate order was taken by Athanasia Soula Antonopoulos Paraskevopoulos (hereinafter referred to as Soula), who claimed to be the decedent's legally adopted daughter. The defendant, executor under the will, filed pleas in abatement to each of these appeals. In the present case, the defendant claimed that none of the plaintiffs was aggrieved by the admission of the will, since, with one exception, all of them were disinherited by a prior valid will, and the party not disinherited would take the same amount under the admitted will as he would have taken under the prior valid will. In Soula's appeal, the plea in abatement was grounded on the claim that the plaintiff was not the legally adopted daughter of the decedent. A motion to consolidate the cases to allow for a simultaneous hearing on both pleas in abatement was filed by the defendant and granted by the court. Subsequently the defendant amended his plea in abatement in the present case to include the claims that "(i)f this court finds that Athanasia Paraskevopoulos is the legally adopted daughter of decedent, then the plaintiffs in the instant case would have no status to challenge the will of the decedent" and "(t)he plaintiffs in this case are not the next of kin of decedent [174 Conn. 484] under Gen.Stat. 45-274 to 45-276 inclusive and are not aggrieved persons to contest the will herein." For the purposes of the plea in abatement, the parties entered into a "partial stipulation" delineating the relationships of each of the parties to the decedent. 1 Determining

Page 144

that Soula was the legally adopted daughter of the decedent testatrix, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal.

The trial court's decision was based entirely upon the facts included in the stipulation entered into by all of the parties in each of the consolidated cases. The record on appeal to this court includes no finding. [174 Conn. 485] We have often stated that a finding of subordinate facts is unnecessary when the court has not heard evidence; Sheldon House Club, Inc. v. Branford, 149 Conn. 28, 30, 175 A.2d 186; Gulf Oil Corporation...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • 641 A.2d 413 (Conn.App. 1994), 11602, Askinazi v. Askinazi
    • United States
    • Connecticut Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • January 4, 1994
    ...procedural irregularities and treat the case as the parties have treated and presented it. We do so here. See, e.g., Lambrakos v. Carson, 174 Conn. 482, 485, 391 A.2d 142 (1978); State v. Beauton, 170 Conn. 234, 237, 365 A.2d 1105 (1976); Fratzel v. Fratzel, 155 Conn. 699, 700, 236 A.2d 83 ......
  • 654 A.2d 1252 (Conn.App. 1995), 12780, Lockwood v. Professional Wheelchair Transp., Inc.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • February 28, 1995
    ...here." Askinazi v. Askinazi, 34 Conn.App. 328, 333 n. 4, 641 A.2d 413 (1994); see also Lambrakos v. Carson,[37 Conn.App. 90] 174 Conn. 482, 485, 391 A.2d 142 (1978); State v. Beauton, 170 Conn. 234, 237, 365 A.2d 1105 (1976). Lockwood moved for an articulation pursuant to Practic......
  • 397 A.2d 113 (Conn. 1978), Velsmid v. Nelson
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • May 30, 1978
    ...survey. A review of the memorandum of decision, to which we may refer to better understand the court's reasoning; Lambrakos v. Carson, 174 Conn. 482, 485, 391 A.2d 142; Treat v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 145 Conn. 136, 140, 139 A.2d 601; further reveals that the court, in part, bas......
  • 435 A.2d 996 (Conn. 1980), Graham v. Zimmerman
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • July 1, 1980
    ...445, 52 A.2d 308 (1947); Ackerman v. Union & New Haven Trust Co., 91 Conn. 500, 508, 100 A. 22 (1917). See also Lambrakos v. Carson, 174 Conn. 482, 487-88, 391 A.2d 142 (1978). There is error in part, the judgment is set aside and the case is remanded with direction to include all recor......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • 641 A.2d 413 (Conn.App. 1994), 11602, Askinazi v. Askinazi
    • United States
    • Connecticut Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • January 4, 1994
    ...procedural irregularities and treat the case as the parties have treated and presented it. We do so here. See, e.g., Lambrakos v. Carson, 174 Conn. 482, 485, 391 A.2d 142 (1978); State v. Beauton, 170 Conn. 234, 237, 365 A.2d 1105 (1976); Fratzel v. Fratzel, 155 Conn. 699, 700, 236 A.2d 83 ......
  • 654 A.2d 1252 (Conn.App. 1995), 12780, Lockwood v. Professional Wheelchair Transp., Inc.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • February 28, 1995
    ...here." Askinazi v. Askinazi, 34 Conn.App. 328, 333 n. 4, 641 A.2d 413 (1994); see also Lambrakos v. Carson,[37 Conn.App. 90] 174 Conn. 482, 485, 391 A.2d 142 (1978); State v. Beauton, 170 Conn. 234, 237, 365 A.2d 1105 (1976). Lockwood moved for an articulation pursuant to Practic......
  • 397 A.2d 113 (Conn. 1978), Velsmid v. Nelson
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • May 30, 1978
    ...survey. A review of the memorandum of decision, to which we may refer to better understand the court's reasoning; Lambrakos v. Carson, 174 Conn. 482, 485, 391 A.2d 142; Treat v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 145 Conn. 136, 140, 139 A.2d 601; further reveals that the court, in part, bas......
  • 435 A.2d 996 (Conn. 1980), Graham v. Zimmerman
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • July 1, 1980
    ...445, 52 A.2d 308 (1947); Ackerman v. Union & New Haven Trust Co., 91 Conn. 500, 508, 100 A. 22 (1917). See also Lambrakos v. Carson, 174 Conn. 482, 487-88, 391 A.2d 142 (1978). There is error in part, the judgment is set aside and the case is remanded with direction to include all recor......
  • Request a trial to view additional results