Benedict v. Smith
| Decision Date | 02 March 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 192737,192737 |
| Citation | 376 A.2d 774,34 Conn.Supp. 63 |
| Court | Connecticut Superior Court |
| Parties | Brooke Ruth BENEDICT et al. v. Robert S. SMITH. |
Ribicoff & Kotkin, Hartford, for plaintiffs.
Collins & Kilburn, Hartford, for defendant.
On June 11, 1976, the defendant filed a demurrer to the complaint, which then consisted of three counts. Thereafter, the plaintiffs added a fourth count and, on December 17, 1976, filed a substitute complaint containing the original three counts plus the fourth count. Although the demurrer had been filed before the substitute complaint was filed, the parties have treated the demurrer as if it had been filed to the first three counts of the substitute complaint, and the court, accordingly, treats it similarly.
In the first of those three counts, the plaintiffs allege that they are beneficiaries under a will of Ruth W. Vehring. In the first count, they allege further that the defendant, who is an attorney at law, was negligent and broke an agreement with the testatrix in that he did not produce the will of the testatrix after her death. In the second count, they allege that the defendant was negligent in failing to produce a copy of the will. In the third count, they allege that the defendant was negligent in transmitting the will to the testatrix. The defendant's demurrer claims that the complaint is demurrable because the plaintiffs have no standing to bring this action. That claim is, in turn, based on the contention that the plaintiffs have not alleged any attempt to probate the will in the Probate Court.
In paragraph seventeen of the second count, the plaintiffs allege that they were "unable to prove the will in the probate proceeding pertaining to" the estate of the testatrix. The phrase "unable to prove the will" in this allegation is to be construed as meaning that the plaintiffs did not undertake to have the lost will admitted to probate 1 inasmuch as counsel for the plaintiffs stated during the course of the argument that no such proceedings were instituted. The complaint, as thus, construed, and the demurrer thereto raise the question whether beneficiaries under a lost will may maintain an action against a person allegedly responsible for the loss of the will without alleging that they have previously instituted proceedings to have the lost will admitted to probate.
There is no Connecticut case on this question. The authorities in other jurisdictions that have considered the analogous question with regard to a tort action for destruction, suppression or spoliation of a will are reviewed in Allen v. Lovell's Adm'x., 303 Ky. 238, 197 S.W.2d 424, noted in 45 Mich.L.R. 923, and 36 Ky.L.J. 299. The substance of the holding in Allen is: "(W)e recognize that a right of action does exist for the wrongful destruction of a will, but hold that the statutory remedy must be resorted to in the probate court, or a showing made that such remedy is inadequate and will not afford relief." 303 Ky. 243-44, 197 S.W.2d 427.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Devlin v. U.S.
...follows the majority of jurisdictions both in recognizing the tort of interference with an inheritance, see Benedict v. Smith, 34 Conn.Supp. 63, 376 A.2d 774 (Conn.Super.Ct.1977),22 and in recognizing an intended heir's cause of action against a lawyer for the negligent drawing of a will, s......
-
Anderson v. Meadowcroft
...710 (3rd Cir.1988); McGregor v. McGregor, 101 F.Supp. 848 (D.Colo.1951), aff'd, 201 F.2d 528 (10th Cir.1953); Benedict v. Smith, 34 Conn.Sup. 63, 376 A.2d 774 (Conn.Super.Ct.1977); DeWitt, supra; Robinson v. First State Bank of Monticello, 97 Ill.2d 174, 73 Ill.Dec. 428, 434, 454 N.E.2d 288......
-
Junco Mulet v. Junco De La Fuente
...attempted to invoke federal jurisdiction."); DeWitt v. Duce, 408 So.2d 216, 218 nn. 5 & 8 (Fla.1981) citing Benedict v. Smith, 34 Conn.Supp. 63, 376 A.2d 774 (1977); and Axe v. Wilson, 150 Kan. 794, 96 P.2d 880 (Kan.1939) ("The rule is that if adequate relief is available in a probate proce......
-
Litherland v. Jurgens
...895 F. Supp. 917 (S.D. Ohio 1995) (applying Ohio law); Jackson v. Kelly, 345 Ark. 151, 44 S.W.3d 328 (2001); Benedict v. Smith, 34 Conn. Supp. 63, 376 A.2d 774 (1977); DeWitt v. Duce, 408 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 1981); Robinson v. First State Bank, 97 Ill. 2d 174, 454 N.E.2d 288, 73 Ill. Dec. 428 ......
-
After Beckwith: an Update on the Interference With Inheritance Tort in California
...prior to California are: Colorado (Lindberg v. United States (10th Cir. 1999) 164 F.3d 1312); Connecticut (Benedict v. Smith (1977) 34 Conn.Supp. 63); Delaware (Chambers v. Kane (Del.Ch. 1980) 424 A.2d 311, affd. in relevant part (Del. 1981) 437 A.2d 163); Florida (DeWitt v. Duce (1981) 408......
-
Tortious Interference With Inheritance
...Nat’l Bank of Mobile, 418 So.2d 77 (Ala. 1982); California: Beckwith v. Dahl, 205 Cal.App.4th 1039 (2012); Connecticut: Benedict v. Smith, 376 A.2d 774 (Conn.Super.Ct. 1977); Florida: DeWitt v. Duce, 408 So.2d 216 (Fla. 1981) (this UPC state adopted only the 1989 revisions to Article VI); G......