Caruso v. Caruso, No. Cv 90-0442212s (Feb. 7, 1991)

1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 1082
Connecticut Superior Court·Decided February 7, 1991·No. No. CV 90-0442212S·Unpublished

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL The plaintiff, who is the father of the deceased, is not an aggrieved person within the meaning of General Statutes sec. 45a-186 (formerly sec. 45-288). He is not an heir of the decedent nor is he entitled to share in the estate of the decedent. General Statutes sec. 45a-303 (c) (formerly sec.45-195 (c)). In order to establish aggrievement, the interest adversely affected must be direct. Urrata v. Izzillo, 1 Conn. App. 17. Also see Zempsky's Appeal from Probate, 6 Conn. App. 521.

Accordingly, the defendant's motion to dismiss this probate appeal is granted.

FRANCES ALLEN SENIOR JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Caruso v. Caruso, No. Cv 90-0442212s (Feb. 7, 1991), 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 1082 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991).

1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 1082 (Caruso v. Caruso, No. Cv 90-0442212s (Feb. 7, 1991)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Urrata v. Izzillo
467 A.2d 943 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1983)
Zempsky's Appeal from Probate
506 A.2d 1050 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1986)