Offredi v. Huhla

• Decision Date: 14 July 1948
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: OFFREDI et al. v. HUHLA et al.

135 Conn. 20

60 A.2d 779

OFFREDI et al.

v.HUHLA et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 14, 1948.

Appeal from Probate Court for District of North Branford; Wynne, Judge.

Edwin Huhla, administrator of the estate of Agnes Huhla, made written application to the probate court for the district of North Branford to order sale of deceased's realty and to empower administrator to sell and convey the realty as provided by statute. From a decree of the probate court ordering the sale of the realty, Catherine Offredi and others, as heirs at law of the deceased, appealed to the superior court in New Haven County. The appeal was tried to the superior court, Wynne, J. From a judgment dismissing the appeal, Catherine Offredi and others appeal.

Judgment set aide and case remanded with direction to sustain the appeal.

BROWN and DICKENSON, JJ., dissenting.

Joseph J. McGuinness and George C. Conway, both of Guilford, for appellants.

Isadore Chaplowe and Albert W. Cretella, both of New Haven, for appellee.

Before MALTBIE, C.J., and JENNINGS, ELLS, BROWN and DICKENSON, JJ.

ELLS, Judge.

Edwin Huhla, administrator of the estate of Agnes Huhla, made written application to the Probate Court for the district of North Branford to order the sale of the real estate of the deceased and to empower him to sell and convey it as provided by statute. The court, upon due notice and hearing, found that there was reasonable cause for granting the application, and made the following order: ‘Ordered that the real estate described in said application be sold, and that the said administrator be and he is hereby empowered to sell and convey the same at Public sale by sealed bids to be received by said Court on or before eight o'clock P.M., November third, 1947, and that public notice be given by publishing the same three times in some newspaper published in New Haven County and having a circulation in said District and due return make.’ The plaintiffs, who are four of the six heirs-at-law, appealed to the Superior Court. It found the issues for the defendant administrator and dismissed the appeal. The plaintiffs have appealed to this court.

The application was made under § 4945 of the General Statutes, as amended by § 670g of the Supplement of 1943, which authorizes a Probate Court to make an order of sale of the real property of an estate ‘if it shall find reasonable cause therefor’ and requires that the court shall in its order ‘direct whether such sale shall be public or private and, if public, the notice thereof which shall be given.’ No list of claims had been filed at the time the application was made, and there was no evidence of any outstanding debts against the estate. The plaintiffs contend that a Probate Court has no power to order a sale of real estate under such circumstances, especially when a majority of the heirs oppose a sale. Originally, probate courts had no authority over the real estate belonging to the deceased, but in later times such courts could, by statutory authority, order the sale of so much, and only so much, of the land of the deceased as was necessary to pay any excess there might be of the indebtedness of the deceased over the value of the personal property. Dorrance v. Raynsford, 67 Conn. 1, 7, 34 A. 706, 52 Am.St.Rep. 266. In the revision of the probate law in 1885, the statute was broadened to give the Probate Court power to order the sale of real estate ‘in its discretion.’ Public Acts 1885, Chap. 110, § 166. In Buel's Appeal, 60 Conn. 63, 65, 22 A. 488, decided in 1891, we reviewed our statutory history, and said (page 67 of 60 Conn., page 489 of 22 A.) that certain of the former restrictions had been removed, that a sale could be ordered without reference to the amount of debts, and that the question of sale is left to the sound discretion of the court, to be decided after a hearing, with full knowledge of all the facts, and subject of course to the right of appeal. Our present law is tersely stated in Callahan v. Peltier, 121 Conn. 106, 112, 183 A. 400, 402. ‘The court of probate may, in its discretion, order sale of any of the real estate if conditions render it necessary or advantageous.’ It follows that in the present case the mere fact that a sale was not necessary in order to pay the debts of the estate did not make the order of sale invalid, and that opposition of some of the heirs, while entitled to consideration, was not of controlling importance.

The court ordered that the real estate be sold, that the...