Opinion
(15261), (15262)
Argued May 29, 1996
Officially released June 25, 1996
Appeal, in each case, from a decree by the Probate Court for the district of New Milford that, inter alia, struck certain portions of a will executed by the parties' mother that the court determined were the product of undue influence exercised by Carl Dunham, Jr., and admitted the remaining portions of the will, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Litchfield and, pursuant to the parties' stipulation, tried to the court, R. Walsh, J., solely on the basis of the Probate Court record; judgments admitting the challenged will to probate entirely, from which Joan Dunham Rogerson and Roger Dunham filed separate appeals; thereafter, the court denied the motion to open the judgments filed by Joan Dunham Rogerson, and she filed an amended appeal; subsequently, the appeals were transferred to this court, and Roger Dunham withdrew his appeal. Affirmed.
William L. Ankerman, with whom, on the brief, was David C. Smith, for the appellant (Joan Dunham Rogerson).
Michael S. McKenna, for the appellee (Carl Dunham, Jr.).
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, Jr., 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 appeal 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.
In a companion case, Roger Dunham also appealed from the judgment of the trial court admitting the will to probate. That appeal has been withdrawn.