Thomas v. Arafeh

• Decision Date: 21 March 1978
• Citation: 391 A.2d 133,174 Conn. 464
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: John THOMAS v. Mehadin K. ARAFEH, Superintendent, Connecticut Valley Hospital.

Page 133

391 A.2d 133

174 Conn. 464

John THOMAS v. Mehadin K. ARAFEH, Superintendent, Connecticut Valley Hospital.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued Nov. 9, 1977.

Decided March 21, 1978.

Mary F. Keller, New Haven, with whom were Stephen Wizner, New Haven, and, on the brief, Dennis E. Curtis, Judith Resnik, New Haven, and, of the District of Columbia bar, Robert Dinerstein, Washington, D. C., for appellant (plaintiff).

Paige J. Everin and Maurice Myrun, Asst. Attys. Gen., with whom, on the brief, was Carl R. Ajello, Atty. Gen., for appellee (defendant).

Before HOUSE, C. J., and LOISELLE, BOGDANSKI, LONGO and SPEZIALE, JJ.

LOISELLE, Associate Justice.

This is an appeal from a Superior Court judgment denying an appeal from a commitment order of the Probate Court for the district of Middletown.

The plaintiff, John Thomas, was admitted to the Connecticut Valley Hospital in April, 1975. On May 20, 1975, after a full hearing, an order of the Probate Court was entered, committing the plaintiff to the hospital, pursuant to General Statutes § 17-178. The order was appealed from and, on November 18, 1975, a trial was held in the Superior Court in Middlesex County. The court concluded that, although an appeal from a commitment order of a probate court involves a trial de novo, the Superior Court's function "is limited to a review of the order of the probate court and a determination of whether the probate court's discretion was legally and reasonably exercised." The court, determining that the Probate Court had not abused its discretion in committing the plaintiff, denied the appeal. From this judgment the plaintiff appeals. ¹

The plaintiff's initial claim of error challenges the court's conclusion that its function was limited to a determination of whether the Probate Court, in issuing the commitment order, abused its discretion. We agree with the plaintiff that the court, in so defining its function, was in error.

In Prince v. Sheffield, 158 Conn. 286, 259 A.2d 621, this court, finding the then-existing rule defining the Superior Court's discretion in probate appeals to be "awkward, inadequate, and confusing" explicitly changed the procedure, establishing as uniform the proposition that "after consideration of all evidence presented on the appeal which would have been admissible in the probate court, the superior court should exercise the same power of judgment which the probate court possessed and decide the appeal as an original proposition unfettered by, and ignoring, the result reached in the probate court." Id., 298, 259 A.2d at 627, see also Sklar v. Estate of Sklar, 168 Conn. 101, 110, 357 A.2d 900. In the present case, the trial court failed to address the real issue before it, as to whether, pursuant to General Statutes § 17-178, ² "the person complained of is mentally ill and a fit subject for treatment in a hospital for mental illness or that he ought to be confined," but rather determined only that the Probate Court did not abuse its discretion in ordering commitment. In this regard, the court erred.

The defendant asserts that the court would have arrived at the same conclusion had it applied the appropriate rule. It is difficult to determine this with assurance, however, particularly since the court's finding enumerates a variety of testimony by several physicians, without finding as fact particular elements of the testimony. We are constrained, therefore, to order a new trial in the Superior Court.

Although this issue is dispositive of the appeal, additional claims by the plaintiff, which may arise on retrial, will be addressed to facilitate those proceedings. Loewenberg v. Wallace, 147 Conn. 689, 694, 166 A.2d 150; Maltbie, Conn.App.Proc. § 341. The plaintiff claims error in the court's ruling excluding evidence of the plaintiff's post-probate hearing condition and in its determination that since the constitutional issues were not raised at the probate hearing the plaintiff was barred from raising them on appeal to the Superior Court.

Prince v. Sheffield, supra, reiterates the established rule that "(i)n an appeal from probate there is a trial de novo in which the appellant has the opportunity to present any evidence which could have been offered in the probate court, whether or not it was actually offered." Id., 158 Conn., 294, 259 A.2d at 625; Stevens' Appeal, 157 Conn. 576, 582, 255 A.2d 632. Because evidence pertaining to the constitutionality of the plaintiff's commitment "would have been relevant and material at the hearing in the Probate Court"; Stevens' Appeal, supra; the Superior Court is not foreclosed from admitting such evidence by any failure of the plaintiff to submit evidence on this issue at the time of the probate hearing.

A more difficult question arises as to whether the court erred in failing to hear evidence pertaining to the plaintiff's condition as it had evolved in the six months following the probate order. In Stevens' Appeal, supra, a case involving an appeal from a probate decree removing the plaintiff as guardian of her minor child, this court held that, in a de novo appeal from a probate order, the Superior Court could not consider those circumstances which had arisen after the probate hearing from which the appeal was taken. The plaintiff argues that Prince v. Sheffield, decided after Stevens' Appeal, impliedly removed this enunciated restriction. We cannot agree with this assertion. The Prince opinion was concerned with and limited to the "awkward, inadequate, and confusing" rule which limited certain appeals from probate to the issue of whether there was an abuse of discretion, while other appeals were to determine the ultimate issue without regard to the result reached by the Probate Court. The only law "changed" by the Prince decision was that which created a uniform rule of de novo appeals from probate orders. Indeed, the evidentiary restriction relied upon in Stevens' Appeal was reiterated in Hartford Kosher Caterers, Inc. v. Gazda, 165 Conn. 478, 486, 338 A.2d 497, a case involving an appeal from a probate decree ordering the sale of certain real property.

The question, therefore, is not whether the evidentiary limitation of Stevens' Appeal was revoked by Prince v. Sheffield but whether, in an appeal from a probate commitment order, the Superior Court, in addressing the issue of whether commitment is proper, may base its determination on the present condition of the plaintiff rather than on his condition as it existed at the time of the probate hearing. This issue has never been specifically addressed by this court. We may, therefore, view it as one of first impression.

As we have noted, this court in Prince v. Sheffield established that in all appeals from probate, the Superior Court is to address the underlying issue without regard to the Probate Court's determination. In appeals involving wills, the disposition of real estate, the approval of an accounting, and the like, the issues involved do not involve ongoing facts requiring reevaluation due to changing circumstances. If a will is determined to be valid, it need not be subjected to determination at a later time as to whether changing circumstances as opposed to new evidence have affected its validity. The question to be addressed in an appeal from a commitment order is of a different nature entirely.

Pursuant to General Statutes § 17-178, the issue to be addressed is whether "the person complained of is mentally ill and a fit subject for treatment in a hospital for mental illness." A person's mental status may change over time. Thus, if the de novo nature of a probate appeal is to have any significance in the commitment context, the Superior Court must be allowed to consider the existing condition of the plaintiff. If the court is limited to an evaluation of his condition as it existed at the time of the...