Goodwin v. Colchester Probate Court

• Decision Date: 19 January 2016
• Docket Number: No. 36214.,36214.
• Citation: 133 A.3d 156,162 Conn.App. 412
• Parties: James GOODWIN v. COLCHESTER PROBATE COURT et al.
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals

162 Conn.App. 412

133 A.3d 156

James GOODWIN

v.COLCHESTER PROBATE COURT et al.

No. 36214.

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued Oct. 22, 2015.

Decided Jan. 19, 2016.

Eric H. Rothauser, with whom, on the brief, was Lee B. Ross, West Hartford, for the appellant (defendant John Fedus).

Kerin M. Woods, New London, for the appellee (plaintiff).

Lavine, Beach and Norcott, Js.

LAVINE

, J.

This probate appeal concerns a challenge to the ancillary administration of a holographic will executed by Rose F. Fedus (decedent) on December 21, 2000, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. On appeal, the defendant John Fedus¹ claims that the Superior Court, sitting as a court of probate, improperly sustained the appeal of the plaintiff, James K. Goodwin, from a decree of the Court of Probate for the district of Colchester by finding that there was "no sufficient objection" to the will pursuant to General Statutes § 45a–288

.² We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

There is no dispute as to the following facts and procedural history. For forty years, until her death on June 1, 2006, the decedent and her sister Mae C. Fedus (Mae Fedus) lived together in a house on Rutland Street in Philadelphia (house). The plaintiff, James K. Goodwin, is the only child of Mae Fedus. At the time of her death, the decedent had the following known heirs at law: Mae Fedus; her brother Stephen Fedus, Jr. (Stephen Fedus), her sister Alyce Daggett, and her nephew, John Fedus, the defendant on appeal in this court.³ The decedent and her heirs at law were the co-owners in equal shares of 130 acres of land (farm) in the town of Colchester.

On or about October 8, 2008, the plaintiff filed a petition for probate and grant of letters with the Register for Probate of Wills (register of wills) for the county of Philadelphia, seeking to probate a handwritten document entitled "Last Will and Testament" (will).⁴ Although the decedent had signed the will, her signature had not been witnessed.⁵ The will bears the handwriting of more than one person, including that of the plaintiff. The two initials "F." that appear in the first and second lines of the will, as well as the words "and Mae Fedus" on the last line, were written in a different color of ink and in a different hand from that of the remaining text. See footnote 5 of this opinion. The decedent's signature was in a handwriting different from the handwriting of the text. To the knowledge of the parties, the decedent had not executed another document purporting to be a will, and she had not created an inter vivos trust.

The plaintiff gave notice of the Pennsylvania petition to probate to Stephen Fedus, Alyce Daggett, and the defendant (collectively, Connecticut relatives). On October 8, 2008, the register of wills issued a notice granting Letters of Administration–CTA in the Estate of Rose Fedus to the plaintiff. The Connecticut relatives objected to the admission of the will to probate in Pennsylvania, but prior to trial in the Court of Common Pleas, Orphans' Court Division (Orphans' Court), they withdrew their challenge to the admission of the will to probate. On May 24, 2010, the Orphans' Court decreed the matter "Settled, Ended and Discontinued" and remanded the matter to the register of wills.⁶

On July 22, 2010, the plaintiff filed a petition for ancillary administration of the decedent's estate (ancillary administration) in the Court of Probate for the district of Colchester (probate court). The Connecticut relatives objected to the admission of the will for ancillary administration. The probate court, Judge Jodi M. Thomas, held a hearing on the objection to the ancillary administration and thereafter issued her opinion. In her opinion, the probate judge stated in part: "The Court finds that the Will is certainly questionable in appearance, having been handwritten in at least two different hands and having no witnesses. There is little doubt that it would not be admitted primarily under Connecticut law. There was also evidence adduced that undue influence by the [plaintiff] and [Mae Fedus] over the decedent may have occurred; that the decedent was a meticulous and capable woman, who would not have left such an important legal decision to chance by virtue of a handwritten, unwitnessed document; and that her bounty during her lifetime extended beyond the [plaintiff] and his family to her other siblings and their families (to which the Will is contrary).⁷ " (Footnote in original.) In re Estate of Rose F. Fedus, Probate Court, district of Colchester (January 3, 2011) (25 Quinnipiac Prob. L.J. 263, 266–67 [2012]

).

On the basis of the foregoing, the probate court issued an order stating: "[T]he court declines to admit the alleged instrument, on an ancillary basis, as the last will and testament of the decedent, Rose Fedus, at this time as ‘sufficient objection’ has been shown within the meaning of ... § 45a–288

. It is now incumbent upon the applicant to ‘offer competent proof of the contents and legal sufficiency of the will’ as per ... § 45a–288 and in accordance with other applicable Connecticut law."⁸ Id., at 267. The plaintiff appealed from the order of the probate court to the Superior Court. See General Statutes § 45a–186 (a)

.

In his complaint, the plaintiff alleged that he was aggrieved by the order of the probate court for the reason that (1) his petition for ancillary probate satisfies the requirements of § 45a–288 (a)

as the will has been proved and established out of this state by a court of competent jurisdiction, the petition includes an authenticated and exemplified copy of the will and the record of the proceedings proving and establishing the will, and it includes a complete written statement of the decedent's property in Connecticut; (2) the adjudication by the register of wills and the adjudication on appeal by the Orphans' Court are final and conclusive and are entitled to full faith and credit pursuant to the constitution of the United States, article four, § 1; (3) the adjudications of the register of wills and on appeal therefrom of the Orphans' Court are final and conclusive, therefore the Connecticut relatives' claims having been fully and fairly litigated in Pennsylvania are barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel.⁹ During trial, the plaintiff amended his complaint, without objection from the Connecticut relatives, to allege that the objections of the Connecticut relatives to the admission of the will to ancillary probate are without merit and are not sufficient objection to allow the probate court to preclude the will from ancillary administration and/or to require competent proof of the contents and legal sufficiency of the will.

Prior to trial, at the request of the court, the parties submitted pretrial briefs. In their briefs, the Connecticut relatives contended that the appeal should be decided as a matter of law on the grounds that the will is legally insufficient, vague, contrary to Connecticut law and public policy, and that it had been revoked. They further argued that, if they were to prevail on their legal claims, there would be no reason to present evidence regarding the decedent's testamentary capacity and whether she was under undue influence. The trial court rejected the Connecticut relatives' request to decide the appeal on the legal issues they raised apart from the facts, and commenced trial on October 2, 2013.

At trial the plaintiff testified as to his relationship with the decedent and how her will came to be written. The plaintiff grew up in the house his mother, Mae Fedus, shared with the decedent and was raised by the two women. He lived in the house until he was thirty-five years of age when he married and moved to a nearby town.¹⁰ After he married, the plaintiff ate lunch with the decedent and Mae Fedus in their house daily during the work week.¹¹ One day a week after work, the plaintiff took Mae Fedus to the grocery store and then spent the night in the house. He, his wife, June A. Goodwin (June Goodwin), and their daughters¹² visited the decedent and Mae Fedus on some weekends and on holidays. The plaintiff, his wife, and their three daughters had a close relationship with the decedent, who treated his daughters as if they were her grandchildren. She babysat for them and provided financial support for their education related activities. The decedent also gave savings bonds to the plaintiff's daughters on each birthday and at Christmas.

The decedent suffered a stroke

in April, 2000, was hospitalized, and spent more than five months in a rehabilitation facility. She returned to the house in October, 2000, and was confined to a bed in the dining room. Due to the stroke, she could not walk and therefore used a wheelchair. The stroke, however, did not affect her mental capacity, cognition, or her speech.¹³

Stephen Fedus sent the decedent and Mae Fedus a Christmas card postmarked December 15, 2000. The Christmas card contained a note written by Stephen Fedus, which stated that "if one of us should die, the probate court and the lawyers will again have a ball, including estate taxes. Rose and Mae we have to do some planning with Alyce & nephew John. I can't do it myself." (Emphasis in original.) In his note, Stephen Fedus referenced extensive litigation regarding the estate of one of their relatives, Frances Schofield.¹⁴

On December 21, 2000, while the plaintiff was having lunch at the house, the decedent asked him to write her will.¹⁵ The plaintiff was surprised by the decedent's request as she had never before discussed her will with him. The decedent, who was then eighty-nine years old, gave the plaintiff a small pad of paper and told the plaintiff what to write. He used his own pen. When he had finished writing, the plaintiff handed the pad of paper to the decedent to review. The decedent reviewed the will, and, using her own pen, added her middle initial "F." in two places, crossed out the words "my mother," and added the words "and Mae Fedus." See...