Burton v. Dillman

• Decision Date: 18 June 1992
• Docket Number: No. 10562,10562
• Citation: 607 A.2d 447,27 Conn.App. 479
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals
• Parties: Nancy BURTON v. John M. DILLMAN, Conservator (ESTATE OF Doreen DANKS).

Page 447

607 A.2d 447

27 Conn.App. 479

Nancy BURTON v. John M. DILLMAN, Conservator (ESTATE OF Doreen DANKS).

No. 10562.

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued Feb. 21, 1992.

Decided May 5, 1992.

Certification Denied June 18, 1992.

Nancy Burton, pro se, appellant (plaintiff).

Melinda S. Monson, Brookfield, with whom, on the brief, was Richard A. O'Connor, Danbury, for appellee (defendant).

Before FOTI, HEIMAN and FREDERICK A. FREEDMAN, JJ.

FOTI, Judge.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff, Nancy Burton, from the trial court's granting of the defendant's motion to dismiss her appeal from an order and decree of the Redding Probate Court. The defendant, John M. Dillman, is the conservator of the estate of Doreen Danks, who was adjudicated an incapable person in 1985. The Probate Court had granted the defendant permission to sell Danks' property known as Stormfield. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss because the plaintiff was not a proper party before the Probate Court, and, therefore, lacked standing to appeal. We agree.

On May 30, 1990, the plaintiff presented the Probate Court with a verified notice of intervention seeking to intervene in the proceedings involving the defendant's application to sell Stormfield. She purported to file the notice pursuant to General Statutes §§ 22a-19(a) ¹ and 22a-19a ² which she claimed made her a statutory party with automatic standing to commence the appeal to the Superior Court.

General Statutes § 22a-19(a) allows intervention by a party upon filing a verified pleading asserting that a proposed activity "involves conduct which has, or which is reasonably likely to have, the effect of unreasonably polluting, impairing or destroying the public trust in the air, water or other natural resources of the state."

General Statutes § 22a-19a expressly makes the provisions of § 22a-19(a) applicable to the unreasonable destruction of historic structures and landmarks of the state that are "listed or under consideration for listing as individual units on the National Register of Historic Places." Property is deemed "under consideration" from the date that various persons are notified pursuant to federal law that the property is scheduled for consideration by the preservation board register, until the date of the final decision to either include or reject the property. 84 Connecticut Attorney General Opinions, No. 80, p. 296-97 (1984).

Even if we assume arguendo that the plaintiff was able to establish standing under § 22a-19a by showing that the property is "listed or under consideration for listing" on the National Register of Historic Places, she would nonetheless lack standing for an appeal from Probate Court pursuant to General Statutes § 45a-186. ³ The Probate Court's jurisdiction and powers have been set forth in Chapter 801a (General Statutes § 45a-98 et seq.) and are so limited. Its statutory power does not include preservation of historic landmarks nor can it claim jurisdiction over environmental issues. Furthermore, the sole issue before the Probate Court in this case was the sale of the property, not its use.

While a basic purpose of § 22a-19(a) is to give persons standing to bring actions to protect the environmentS Red Hill Coalition, Inc. v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 212 Conn. 727, 734, 563 A.2d 1347 (1989); and intervention in an administrative proceeding is for the limited purpose of raising environmental issues; Connecticut Fund for the Environment, Inc. v. Stamford, 192 Conn. 247, 248 n. 2, 470 A.2d 1214 (1984); "General Statutes § 22a-19 does not expand the jurisdictional authority of an administrative body acting pursuant to a separate act of title 22a to hear any and all environmental matters, but rather, limits an intervenor to the raising of those environmental matters which impact on the particular subject of the act pursuant to which the commissioner is acting." (Emphasis in original.) Connecticut Water Co. v. Beausoleil, 204 Conn. 38, 46, 526 A.2d 1329 (1987). Even if we assume that a Probate Court is included within § 22a-19(a), it may act only within its powers authorized by statute and an intervening plaintiff is limited to raising environmental matters relating to those statutory powers. The plaintiff may not expand the scope of that action. Id., at 47, 526 A.2d 1329. The Probate Court is a court of limited jurisdiction having only such powers as given by statute; Prince v. Sheffield, 158 Conn. 286, 293-94, 259 A.2d 621 (1969). " '[A] court which exercises a limited and statutory jurisdiction is without jurisdiction to act unless it does so under the precise circumstances and in the manner particularly prescribed by the enabling legislation.' " Marcus' Appeal from Probate, 199 Conn. 524, 529, 509 A.2d 1 (1986).

We conclude, as did the trial court, that the Redding Probate Court does not have jurisdiction to decide environmental matters, and that the plaintiff therefore had no right to intervene in the probate proceedings. The concept of standing involves aggrievement, that is, an injury in fact, plus whatever other conditions must exist to allow a party to appeal. Ardmare Construction Co. v. Freedman, 191 Conn. 497, 500-504, 467 A.2d 674 (1983). Because the plaintiff's claim of aggrievement rested on issues that were not within the authority of the Probate Court to decide, the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to hear her appeal from the Probate Court order. "An appeal from probate is not so much an 'appe...