- within Family and Matrimonial, Intellectual Property and Antitrust/Competition Law topic(s)
- with readers working within the Advertising & Public Relations, Business & Consumer Services and Technology industries
Probate litigation is an area of law that can be fraught with unexpected twists and critical deadlines. The recent decision in Chartier v. Valliere, 234 Conn. App. 1 (2025), offers a compelling look into the complexities of will contests, the significance of precise court language, and the perilous consequences of delayed action. This case provides important insights for legal professionals and those involved in estate matters, demonstrating how a mistake in the probate process can significantly affect the outcome and highlighting considerations for protecting rights and interests.
Case Summary
In Chartier v. Valliere, the dispute centered around the admission of a will executed by the decedent on April 27, 2023, shortly before her death June 1, 2023. The decedent's will, signed and witnessed by two disinterested parties, removed her three siblings as beneficiaries and contained incomplete language regarding her pets. While the will largely conformed to the statutory procedural requirements, it did not include a self-proving affidavit, which, in Connecticut, is a sworn declaration confirming that the will was signed willingly by a testator of sound mind and witnessed by competent individuals.
Probate Court Will Contest
On June 13, 2023, the decedent's nephew and his partner, as named executors and ultimate beneficiaries under the will, petitioned the Probate Court to admit the will. The Defendants, two of the decedent's three disinherited siblings, objected to the will on July 12, 2023, and requested the appointment of a temporary administrator. The Probate Court conducted a hearing, but the two witnesses to the will did not attend or testify despite being notified. As a result, the court appointed Valliere, a disinterested party, as "administrator" by decree dated July 26, 2023. This decree gave Valliere twelve months to settle the estate, language more typically reserved for fiduciaries with non-temporary status. The decree did not use the term "temporary" and omitted any findings on the will's admissibility.
Instead of filing an immediate appeal within thirty (30) days, the Plaintiffs, as nominated executors, requested a further hearing on August 24, 2023, arguing that the decree lacked specific findings regarding the will's admissibility. On September 13, 2023, the Probate Court issued a second decree, without notice or hearing, emphasizing deficiencies in the will. The court reasoned that the will was invalid because it was not on letterhead, was incomplete and generic, and neither of the witnesses attended the initial hearing.
Superior Court Appeal
On September 27, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a de novo appeal with the Superior Court pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes §45a-186, contending that the September 13, 2023 decree was controlling. Defendants maintained that the July 26, 2023 decree governed and effectively denied admission of the will to probate. After a trial de novo, which included testimony from the two witnesses, the Superior Court admitted the will, reasoning that the Defendants failed to demonstrate undue influence. The Defendants subsequently appealed this decision to the Appellate Court.
Appellate Court Appeal
The Appellate Court considered two primary issues: (i) the timeliness of the appeal and (ii) the proper execution of the will. Its analysis relied exclusively on the July 26, 2023 decree, holding that this decree denied the admission of the will to probate. While the Appellate Court acknowledged that the decree did not make any direct findings on admissibility, it interpreted the appointment of an administrator as an implicit declaration of the will's invalidity. The court further reasoned that the Probate Court's lack of direct reference to the temporary administrator statute, combined with the decree giving Valliere twelve months to settle the estate, meant that it implicitly denied the will's admission. The Appellate Court gave no deference to the fact that the Defendants had requested only a "temporary administrator" in their objection and instead focused primarily on the language in the decree.
The Appellate Court also reviewed the procedural deficiencies of the September 13, 2023 decree. Because this decree was issued without notice and hearing, which is required when determining the admissibility of a will, it could not be considered as determining admissibility. Therefore, the first decree governed, and the Plaintiff's appeal was dismissed as untimely.
Why Is this Important?
This case highlights best practices in the Connecticut Probate Courts, emphasizing the importance of timely filings and thorough review of court decrees. The facts here are straightforward and follow a common pattern seen in contested estates. One party submits the will for admission and seeks appointment as the executor of the estate while another party objects to the admission of the will. The resulting decrees in this case should serve as warnings to legal professionals and those involved in estate matters.
While discussions and holdings at hearings may seem clear to all parties, they may not always be perfectly reflected in the Court's decree. It is crucial to carefully review all decrees and identify any direct or ancillary issues that the language, whether intentionally or unintentionally, may create. Immediate action is necessary if the decree does not accurately reflect decisions made orally at the hearing, whether by appealing to the Superior Court or seeking further relief and explanation in the Probate Court. In this instance, had the Plaintiffs sought a more immediate explanation regarding the status of Valliere's appointment, they would have been alerted to the fact that he was not appointed as a temporary administrator. They would then have been able to file a timely appeal. Although they appeared to seek such clarification within thirty days, their filing was inadequate to preserve their appellate rights.
Final Thoughts
In summary, Chartier v. Valliere underscores the importance of closely examining court decrees for procedural clarity, especially in probate matters where the distinction between temporary and permanent appointments can affect appellate rights. Parties should act promptly to seek clarification or appeal if a decree does not explicitly address the issues decided at hearing, as delays may result in dismissal of appeals. This case serves as a reminder that best practices in Connecticut Probate Courts require vigilance, timely filings, and a thorough understanding of statutory requirements to safeguard estate interests and preserve rights.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
