Rider v. Rider

Decision Date29 January 2020
Docket NumberCV186090440S
CourtConnecticut Superior Court
PartiesPatrick Rider v. Brian Rider, Conservator of the Estate of Leigh Rider

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Judge (with first initial, no space for Sullivan, Dorsey, and Walsh): Cobb, Susan Quinn, J.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Cobb J.

In this probate appeal, the plaintiff Patrick Rider challenges the procedures applied by the Probate Court in approving the final account of his brother Brian Rider, conservator of the estate of their father Leigh Rider, and the Probate Court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration of that order.

The following facts and procedural history are relevant to this appeal. On or about July 14, 2017, Leigh Rider filed a petition with the Probate Court requesting that the Probate Court appoint his son, Brian Rider, as voluntary conservator over his estate, pursuant to General Statutes § 45a-646.[1] That petition was granted by the Probate Court.

In August 2017, Leigh Rider submitted a written notice to the Probate Court requesting release from the voluntary representation pursuant to General Statutes § 45a-647.[2] On October 5, 2017, the Probate Court Keeney, J., issued an order stating that "[a]s of September 28, 2017, Leigh H. Rider Jr. is released from voluntary representation, and the conservatorship of the person and estate is terminated pursuant to [General Statutes] § 45a-647." The Probate Court further ordered that:

The conservator of the estate shall promptly transfer all remaining assets of the estate to Leigh H. Rider, Jr. Furthermore, if the court requires, the conservator, Brian Rider, shall file a final financial report or account in addition to the modified accounting already submitted. A hearing for the allowance and acceptance of the final accounting will be scheduled to be heard on November 7, 2017 within thirty (30) days from the day this Decree is dated. Notice of the hearing will be mailed separately to all parties of interest.

On or about October 31, 2017, Brian Rider, as conservator, filed a final account with the Probate Court on an official Probate Court form. As to the reason for the account, the defendant checked the box for "final account" pursuant to § 45a-179.[3] The account was for the time period of July 27, 2017 to September 28, 2017.

On or about November 17, 2017, the Probate Court issued an order that it would hear the petition for allowance of a final account for the period covering July 27, 2017, to September 28, 2017, on November 28, 2017. The notice provided: "It appears at this time that the court will not require any party to attend this hearing. However, if after a review of the accounting(s), you have a question or would like to present an objection, please notify the court as soon as possible so we can require the fiduciary’s attendance." The order was noticed to interested parties including the plaintiff.

On November 22, 2017, the Probate Court continued the hearing to 1:00 p.m. on December 13, 2017. Notice was provide to interested parties including the plaintiff. On December 2 2017, Leigh Rider passed away.

On December 4, 2017, the Probate Court issued an order as to the final account of the conservator, which stated "NOTICE TO RECIPIENT" as follows: "A hearing has been scheduled on the above petition. This notice is sent to you because your interests in this matter may be affected by the court’s decision on the above-referenced petition. If you wish to be heard or seek further information, you should appear at the date, time and place set for the hearing." The notice included a list of persons who "must" attend the hearing, which included the plaintiff. The notice also informed the interested parties that they had the right to request a copy of the petition from the fiduciary and had the right to review and obtain documents in the court file.

On December 13, 2017, the Probate Court held the hearing, which was recorded. The plaintiff was present at the Probate Court and was represented by counsel, Matthew Carlone, who appeared by telephone. Also present were Charles Houlihan, attorney for the defendant Brian Rider, Thomas Becker, the attorney for Leigh Rider, and an attorney for a contract purchaser, Franklin Pilicy.

Prior to the hearing, Attorney Carlone sought a continuance for the reason that he could not attend the hearing in person and had just been retained by the plaintiff, and needed more time to consider the petition for final account. That request was denied.

During the hearing, Attorney Carlone and the plaintiff stated objections to the final account, including objections to the attorneys fees charged to the estate by Attorney Houlihan, certain expenses, as well as other matters. After this discussion and the questions raised by the Probate Court and the parties, the plaintiff’s counsel requested that the matter be continued for a full evidentiary hearing. At the end of the hearing, the Probate Court, Keeney, J., stated: "I’m going to have to spend some time on this myself so I’m going to have to continue this hearing."

The Probate Court did not continue the hearing. On December 22, 2017, the Probate Court issued its decree approving the final account. In its memorandum of opinion, the Probate Court discussed the attorneys fees and found them reasonable under the circumstances, primarily crediting the statements of the conservator and his counsel at the hearing. On December 26, 2017, the plaintiff filed a motion for Revocation of the Probate Court Decree approving the final account.

On March 2, 2018, the plaintiff filed this appeal, dated February 5, 2018, from the denial of the plaintiff’s motion for revocation of the Probate Court’s approval of the final account. The appeal is taken pursuant to General Statutes § 45a-186 et seq., and was served on February 6, 2018. At the time the appeal was filed, the Probate Court had not yet rendered a decision on the motion for revocation. The appeal addresses the December 22, 2017 decree approving the final account and the Probate Court’s failure to issue a decree on plaintiff’s motion for revocation. After the appeal was filed in this case, the Probate Court denied the motion for revocation. That order is not dated.

On March 13, 2018, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely. The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff’s appeal from the order denying the motion for revocation was timely. Having considered the parties’ briefs and arguments, the court finds the issues for the defendant.

DISCUSSION

"In a probate appeal ... the Superior Court’s jurisdiction is statutory and limited to the order appealed from. The issues presented for review are those defined in the reasons for the appeal. The Superior Court cannot consider or adjudicate issues beyond the scope of those proper for determination by the order or decree attached. This is so even with the consent of the parties to the appeal because the court has subject matter jurisdiction limited only to the order or decree appeal from." (Internal quotations omitted.) Eder’s Appeal from Probate, 177 Conn.App. 163, 168, 171 A.3d 506 (2017).

Pursuant to General Statutes § 45a-186(a), any person aggrieved by "any order, denial or decree" of a Probate Court may appeal that decision to the superior court within thirty or forty-five days depending on the type of order or decree at issue. Because this right to appeal is a statutory right, the statute’s requirements, including time deadlines, must be strictly complied with. Connery v. Gieske, 323 Conn. 377, 389, 147 A.3d 94 (2016) ("It is axiomatic that strict compliance with [the] terms [of § 45a-186] is a prerequisite to an aggrieved party’s right to appeal and the Superior Court’s jurisdiction over the appeal").

In denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss, this court found that the plaintiff’s appeal from the order denying the motion for revocation was timely. Implicit in that ruling, and to clarify, the plaintiff’s appeal from the Probate Court’s December 22, 2017 order approving the final account was not timely commenced because it...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT