Haydusky's Appeal From Probate, 121520 CTCA, AC 41905

• Docket Nº: AC 41905
• Opinion Judge: PER CURIAM.
• Party Name: HAYDUSKY'S APPEAL FROM PROBATE[*]
• Attorney: Marianne Haydusky, self-represented, the appellant (plaintiff). John-Henry M. Steele, for the appellee (named defendant). Susan King Shaw, for the appellees (defendant Karen Primavera et al.).
• Judge Panel: Bright, C. J., and Alvord and Cradle, Js.
• Case Date: December 15, 2020
• Court: Appellate Court of Connecticut

HAYDUSKY'S APPEAL FROM PROBATE^[*]

No. AC 41905

Court of Appeals of Connecticut

December 15, 2020

Argued September 15, 2020

Procedural History

Appeal from the decision of the Probate Court for the district of Milford-Orange denying the plaintiff's claims against the estate of her mother, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Ansonia-Milford and tried to the court, Hon. Arthur A. Hiller, judge trial referee; judgment for the defendants, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Affirmed.

Marianne Haydusky, self-represented, the appellant (plaintiff).

John-Henry M. Steele, for the appellee (named defendant).

Susan King Shaw, for the appellees (defendant Karen Primavera et al.).

Bright, C. J., and Alvord and Cradle, Js.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, Marianne Haydusky, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying her claims on appeal from the decision of the Probate Court, which rejected her claims for distribution of assets from her mother's estate.¹ On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court made clearly erroneous findings of fact, made erroneous evidentiary rulings, abused its discretion in a number of ways, including denying her request for a continuance of the trial, and misapplied the law. After carefully reviewing the briefs of the parties, in conjunction with their oral arguments and the record from the trial court, we conclude that the findings of the court are not clearly erroneous, that the court did not abuse its discretion as claimed by the plaintiff, and that the court's decision is correct in law.

The judgment is affirmed.

---------

Notes:

^[*] In the Superior Court, the case was captioned Marianne Haydusky v. Estate of Audrey L. Hayducky. The judgment file, appeal form, and briefs bear the caption Marianne Haydusky v. Estate of Audrey L. Hayducky. The caption of the case that appears here conforms to the convention our appellate courts use for appeals from probate. See, e.g., Garrett's Appeal from Probate, 237 Conn. 233, 676 A.2d 394 (1996).

[1] The following individuals were served with the appeal: Betsy Davis, chief clerk of the Probate Court of the district of Milford-Orange; Joanne Hayducky, Karen Primavera, and Audrey M. Stella, daughters of the decedent; and Kevin M. Casini, administrator.

---