Christov v. Popova Kerbel, No. Cv98 0063941s (Mar. 16, 1999)

Connecticut Superior Court

Christov v. Popova Kerbel, No. Cv98 0063941s (Mar. 16, 1999)

1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 3842

Connecticut Superior Court·Decided March 16, 1999·No. No. CV98 0063941S·Unpublished

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION MOTION TO STRIKE The appellee moves to strike this appeal from probate on the basis that the appellant has failed to establish the threshold issue of aggrievement, specifically, that she has failed to plead that the probate courts decision has adversely affected her statutory right to apply for the position of conservatrix.

While the appellants position would have merit if the appeal were limited to her independent standing, the appellee responds by arguing that the appellant may bring this appeal as "next friend" of her mother to seek review of the probate court proceedings under circumstances where the latter is unable to do so. CT Page 3843

The position of the appellant appears to have support inCottrell v. Connecticut Bank Trust Co., 175 Conn. 257 (1978) and the superior court cases cited by the appellant which rely onCottrell. The motion to strike is therefore denied.

Thompson, J.

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

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION MOTION TO STRIKE The appellee moves to strike this appeal from probate on the basis that the appellant has failed to establish the threshold issue of aggrievement, specifically, that she has failed to plead that the probate courts decision has adversely affected her statutory right to apply for the position of conservatrix.

While the appellants position would have merit if the appeal were limited to her independent standing, the appellee responds by arguing that the appellant may bring this appeal as "next friend" of her mother to seek review of the probate court proceedings under circumstances where the latter is unable to do so. CT Page 3843

The position of the appellant appears to have support inCottrell v. Connecticut Bank Trust Co., 175 Conn. 257 (1978) and the superior court cases cited by the appellant which rely onCottrell. The motion to strike is therefore denied.

Thompson, J.

Christov v. Popova Kerbel, No. Cv98 0063941s (Mar. 16, 1999), 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 3842 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 3842 (Christov v. Popova Kerbel, No. Cv98 0063941s (Mar. 16, 1999)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related