Williams v. Houck

• Decision Date: 16 May 1956
• Citation: 123 A.2d 177,143 Conn. 433
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Frank D. WILLIAMS et al. v. Frances S. HOUCK, Administratrix c/t/a (ESTATE of John A. ECKERT, III), et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Page 177

123 A.2d 177

143 Conn. 433

Frank D. WILLIAMS et al. v. Frances S. HOUCK, Administratrix c/t/a (ESTATE of John A.

ECKERT, III), et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

May 16, 1956.

J. Kenneth Bradley, Bridgeport, with whom was Huntley Stone, Bridgeport, for the appellant (named defendant).

Jack H. Courage, Greenwich, for the appellees (plaintiffs).

Before INGLIS, C. J., O'SULLIVAN, WYNNE and DALY, JJ., and COVELLO, Superior Court Judge.

DALY, Associate Justice.

The testator, John A. Eckert, died on May 11, 1929, a resident of the town of Greenwich. Surviving were his widow, Louise B. Eckert; a son, John A. Eckert, Jr.; a daughter, Mildred E. Williams; and a grandson, John A. Eckert, III, the son of John A. Eckert, Jr. John A. Eckert, Jr., died on April 21, 1945. John A. Eckert, III, died on may 3, 1945, before attaining the age of thirty years, unmarried and without issue, and Frances S. Houck is the administratrix c. t. a. of his estate. Mildred E. Williams died in 1951, leaving a son, Frank D. Williams, and a daughter, Joan W. Sokoloff, who are now living. Louise B. Eckert, the testator's widow, died on May 13, 1953. The Probate Court for the district of Greenwich made an order ascertaining that the estate of John A. Eckert, III, is the distributee of the principal of the trust which was created under the provisions of paragraph (b) of article sixth of the testator's will. The pertinent portions of article sixth are printed in the footnote. ¹ An appeal was taken to the Superior Court by the plaintiffs, Frank D. Williams and Joan W. Sokoloff. The Superior Court overruled a plea in abatement and to the jurisdiction filed by the defendant Frances S. Houck, administratrix c. t. a. of the estate of John A. Eckert, III, denied her motions to erase and to expunge, granted the plaintiffs' motion to expunge, reversed the decree of the Probate Court and adjudged that the plaintiffs, Frank D. Williams and Joan W. Sokoloff, are the distributees. The defendant Frances S. Houck, hereinafter called the defendant, has appealed from the judgment to this court.

In their motion for appeal, the plaintiffs alleged that '[t]hey are the issue of Mildred E. Williams and remaindermen of the trust created in and by article sixth (b) of the will' of the testator; that the Probate Court made an order ascertaining that 'one of the distributees is the estate of John A. Eckert, III,' and that they 'are aggrieved by so much of said order and decree of this Court which finds and ascertains that the estate of John A. Eckert, III, is a distributee of said trust.' The defendant contends that the plaintiffs' motion for appeal did not contain the allegations necessary to confer jurisdiction upon the Superior Court and to show that they are aggrieved and that, therefore, the trial court erred in overruling her plea in abatement and to the jurisdiction, in denying her motions to erase and to expunge and in granting the plaintiffs' motion to expunge.

Section 7071 of the General Statutes provides that '[a]ny person aggrieved by any order * * * of a court of probate in any matter, unless otherwise specially provided by law, may appeal therefrom to the superior court.' A person to be 'aggrieved' within the meaning of this statute must have not only a pecuniary interest but a pecuniary interest which has been injuriously affected by the decree appealed from. Kaskel v. Steinberg, 142 Conn. 379, 384, 114 A.2d 853; Weidlich v. First National Bank & Trust Co., 139 Conn. 652, 656, 96 A.2d 547. In determining whether an appellant has a grievance, the question is whether there is a possibility, as distinguished from a certainty, that some legally protected interest which he has in the estate has been adversely affected. O'Leary v. McGuinness, 140 Conn. 80, 83, 98 A.2d 660; Buckingham's Appeal, 57 Conn. 544, 545, 18 A. 256; Mallory's Appeal from Probate, 62 Conn. 218, 222, 25 A. 109; 1 Locke & Kohn, Conn. Probate Practice, p. 384.

Section 7075 reads: 'In each appeal from probate * * * the interest of the appellant shall be stated in the motion for appeal, unless such interest shall appear on the face of the proceedings and records of such court of probate.' By reason of § 7075, the appellant is required as a matter of procedure to set forth in his motion for appeal, either expressly or by reference to specific records in the Probate Court, the interest which he claims has been adversely affected. Ciglar v. Finkelstone, 142 Conn. 432, 434, 114 A.2d 925; Feigner v. Gopstein, 139 Conn. 738, 742, 97 A.2d 267; Exchange Buffet Corporation v. Rogers, 139 Conn. 374, 377, 94 A.2d 22. 'In so far as § 7075 requires that the motion for appeal show the interest of an appellant in the subject matter of the decree appealed from it is satisfied if the motion for appeal states the basis of the appellant's claim of such an interest--that is, if it states the nature of the interest claimed. It is not essential that the motion for appeal allege facts which establish the final validity of the claim.' Feigner v. Gopstein, supra.

The plaintiffs, in alleging that '[t]hey are the remaindermen of the trust created in and by article sixth (b) of the will,' stated their pecuniary interests, namely, that they are the sole distributees of the entire principal of that trust. In alleging that the Probate Court found that the estate of John A. Eckert, III, is a distributee of it, they stated that their pecuniary interests were injuriously affected. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion for appeal shows how their pecuniary interests are affected to their disadvantage and why they are 'aggrieved.' A discussion of the amendments to the plaintiffs' motion for appeal is not called for. The trial court did not err in overruling the defendant's plea in abatement and to the jurisdiction, in denying her motions to erase and to expunge and in granting the plaintiffs' motion to expunge.

The significant question for determination is whether the estate of John A. Eckert, III, the testator's grandson, is the distributee entitled to the principal of the trust which was created under the provisions of paragraph (b) of article sixth or whether the plaintiffs, Frank D. Williams and John W. Sokoloff, the testator's two living grandchildren, issue of his daughter Mildred, are the distributees entitled to it. If it vested in John A. Eckert, III, prior to his death on May 3, 1945, his estate is the distributee entitled to it. The defendant maintains that it did, contending that a fundamental rule of construction in this state is that which favors the early vesting of future estates. She asserts that the provisions of paragraph (b) of article sixth are clear, precise and unambiguous in directing payment of the principal of the trust thereby created to the 'lawful issue' of John A. Eckert, Jr., 'him surviving.'

In and by the first paragraph of article sixth of his will, the testator gave, devised and bequeathed three-fifths of the remainder of his estate to his executors, in trust, to pay over the net income to his wife, Louise B. Eckert, during her life, 'and upon her death to divide such three-fifths of my estate, together with any accumulated income therefrom into four equal shares or portions.' Under the provisions of paragraph (a), two of the four shares were left to his daughter, Mildred E. Williams, or to her surviving issue, and if none, then to his son, John A. Eckert, Jr., if living, and if not, to his children. In and by the provisions of paragraph (b), the testator gave, devised and bequeathed one of the four shares to his executors, in trust, to pay the net income to his son, John A. Eckert, Jr., during his life, and upon his death to pay over the principal 'to his lawful issue, him surviving,' and, 'in case he shall leave no lawful issue,' to pay it to the children of the testator's daughter, Mildred E. Williams, in equal shares. By the terms of paragraph (c), the last one-fourth was to be held in trust for the descendants of his son, John A. Eckert, Jr., until John A. Eckert, III, arrived at the age of thirty years, or his prior decease, when the principal was to be divided among the issue of John A. Eckert, Jr., and if there was no issue, then it was to be paid to him, and if he was not living, then to the issue of Mildred E. Williams.

In Budington v. Houck, 134 Conn. 72, 80, 54 A.2d 671, relied upon by the plaintiffs as support for their claim that they are the distributees of the trust created by article sixth (b), we determined that they were the distributees of the trust created by paragraph (a) of article eighth of the will. The concluding sentence of that paragraph is: 'Upon the death of my said son, John A. Eckert Jr., I give, devise and bequeath such share or portion, or so much thereof as has not been paid, to my Executors, their survivors and successors, in trust nevertheless, during the life of my grandson, John A....