Dunham v. Dunham

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Dunham v. Dunham

677 A.2d 436, 237 Conn. 480, 1996 Conn. LEXIS 214

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedJune 25, 1996

Docket15261; 15262

StatusPublished

This text of 677 A.2d 436 (Dunham v. Dunham) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dunham v. Dunham, 677 A.2d 436, 237 Conn. 480, 1996 Conn. LEXIS 214 (Colo. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The principal issues in this appeal arise out of claims that a will should not have been admitted to probate because one of the testator’s sons, an attorney, allegedly exercised undue influence over the testator. The trial court, after a de novo trial, rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Carl Dunham, [481]*481Jr., in which it held that the last will and testament of the testator, Jessica Scott Dunham, dated August 27, 1978, be admitted to probate in its entirety. The defendant Joan Dunham Rogerson, the testator’s daughter, has renewed on appeal¹ the challenges that she raised at trial to the subject matter jurisdiction of the trial court and to the merits of the judgment rendered by the trial court. The trial court, Pickett, J., considered and rejected Rogerson’s jurisdictional challenge, and the trial court, R. Walsh, J., considered and denied her motions for a mistrial and for the opening of the judgment against her. Upon a careful review of the claims of impropriety raised by Rogerson in her brief and at oral argument in this court, we conclude, in light of the record before the trial court, that the judgment of the trial court should be sustained.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The principal issues in this appeal arise out of claims that a will should not have been admitted to probate because one of the testator’s sons, an attorney, allegedly exercised undue influence over the testator. The trial court, after a de novo trial, rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Carl Dunham, [481]*481Jr., in which it held that the last will and testament of the testator, Jessica Scott Dunham, dated August 27, 1978, be admitted to probate in its entirety. The defendant Joan Dunham Rogerson, the testator’s daughter, has renewed on appeal¹ the challenges that she raised at trial to the subject matter jurisdiction of the trial court and to the merits of the judgment rendered by the trial court. The trial court, Pickett, J., considered and rejected Rogerson’s jurisdictional challenge, and the trial court, R. Walsh, J., considered and denied her motions for a mistrial and for the opening of the judgment against her. Upon a careful review of the claims of impropriety raised by Rogerson in her brief and at oral argument in this court, we conclude, in light of the record before the trial court, that the judgment of the trial court should be sustained.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

677 A.2d 436, 237 Conn. 480, 1996 Conn. LEXIS 214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunham-v-dunham-conn-1996.