Robinson v. Guman

• Decision Date: 27 July 1972
• Citation: 163 Conn. 439,311 A.2d 57
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Elizabeth M. ROBINSON et al. v. John D. GUMAN, Jr., Administrator (ESTATE of Howard E. LANE).

Page 57

311 A.2d 57

163 Conn. 439

Elizabeth M. ROBINSON et al. v. John D. GUMAN, Jr., Administrator (ESTATE of Howard E. LANE).

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

July 27, 1972.

George N. Nichols, Bridgeport, for appellants (plaintiffs).

James F. Kenney, Bridgeport, with whom, on the brief, was James P. White, Jr., Bridgeport, for appellee (defendant).

Before HOUSE, C.J., and RYAN, SHAPIRO, LOISELLE and MacDONALD, JJ.

MacDONALD, Associate Justice.

This is an appeal by three heirs-at-law of Howard E. Lane, late of Bridgeport, who died intestate, from a judgment of the Superior Court which, in effect, sustained certain orders and decrees of the Probate Court for the district of Bridgeport. The sole issue presented is whether the plaintiffs, two of whom were nonresidents of Connecticut and the third a resident of Connecticut but not of the probate district of Bridgeport, were given legal notice of the proceedings involved so as to limit the time for their appeal from the Probate Court's orders to thirty days.

The undisputed facts as stipulated by the parties are as follows: At all relevant times the plaintiffs Elizabeth M. Robinson and George R. Berger were not inhabitants or residents of Connecticut and the plaintiff Gertrude L. Foote, although living in Connecticut, was not an inhabitant or resident of the probate district of Bridgeport. None of the plaintiffs was present at the time of entry of the orders and decrees which are the subject of this appeal. Notice of the application for letters of administration, and application to compromise a doubtful and disputed claim against the estate and an application for the sale of certain Bridgeport real estate owned by the decedent was given, pursuant to order of the Probate Court, by publication in the Bridgeport Post and by registered mail directed to the treasurer of the state of Connecticut. The orders and decrees of the Probate Court entered on these applications granting letters of administration to John D. Guman, Jr., and subsequently granting him, as administrator, leave to compromise the disputed creditor's claim and to sell real estate owned by the estate, all were entered within twelve months of the date of the appeal, but more than thirty days prior thereto. The application for letters of administration recited that there were no known heirs of the decedent.

The defendant moved to erase the plaintiff Foot's appeal to the Superior Court and pleaded in abatement to the appeal by the plaintiffs Robinson and Berger on the ground, in each case, that the Superior Court had no jurisdiction because the appeals had not been filed 'within the time limited, nor within the requirements of Sections 45-289 and 45-291 of the Connecticut General Statutes.' The court granted the motion to erase and sustained the plea in abatement, and judgment was rendered accordingly erasing the appeal as to Foote and abating and dismissing the appeal as to Robinson and Berger. In appealing from the foregoing judgment, the plaintiffs assign as error the action of the court in sustaining the plea in abatement, granting the motion to erase and, pursuant thereto, in dismissing the appeal making the basic claim that publication of notice in a local newspaper did not constitute 'legal notice' to the plaintiffs so as to limit the time for their appeal to the Superior Court to thirty days, as found by the court, instead of twelve months, as claimed by the plaintiffs.

Of the several relevant statutes involved, § 45-291 of the General Statutes provides, in its pertinent part, that 'all appeals by persons not inhabitants of this state who were not present at such time (of the making of the order or decree appealed from) and did not have legal notice to be present shall be taken within twelve months thereafter.' Section 45-31 provides: 'Courts of probate may make any proper order providing for the notice to be given to any person residing out of or absent from this state and, except as otherwise provided, to any person within the state to whom particular notice of any proceeding before such court is required by law, and the notice given under such order shall be a legal notice to such person.' Since the Probate Court for the district of Bridgeport ordered notice of the various hearings by publication in the Bridgeport Post and by registered mail to the state treasurer, a reading of the two statutes would appear to indicate clearly that the nonresident plaintiffs, having received 'legal notice' as defined by § 45-31, were not entitled to the twelve-month appeal period but were limited instead to the thirty days allowed by § 45-289 which provides,...