Opinion
(4893) (4894)
Argued January 12, 1988
Decision released January 26, 1988
Appeal, in the first case, from the decision by the Probate Court for the district of Norwalk removing the plaintiff as executor of the estate of Daphne Seybolt Culpeper, and action, in the second case, for the construction of a will, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk, where the cases were consolidated and referred to Hon. William L. Tierney, state trial referee; judgment affirming the plaintiff's removal as executor and determining that will construction was not necessary, from which The Daphne Seybolt Culpeper Foundation, Inc., et al. and the plaintiff filed separate appeals to this court. No error.
James F. Stapleton, with whom was Peter M. Nolin, for the appellants (The Daphne Seybolt Culpeper Foundation, Inc., et al.).
William A. Phillips, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Paul J. Pacifico, for the appellees (Rodney S. Eielson et al., administrators c.t.a., d.b.n.).
John R. Whelan, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were David E. Ormstedt and Linda Pearce Prestley, assistant attorneys general, for the appellee (Joseph I. Lieberman, attorney general).
The appellants challenge a judgment rendered by the trial court removing the plaintiff as a co-executor of the decedent's estate on the ground that the facts found by the trial court were erroneous. An appellate court may not retry facts and its duty upon review of such a claim is limited to a determination of whether the trial court's judgment was clearly erroneous in this respect or otherwise contrary to law. Practice Book 4061; Damora v. Christ-Janer, 184 Conn. 109, 113, 441 A.2d 61 (1981); Ram Roofing Sheet Metal Co. v. A.B.C. Plumbing Heating, Inc., 2 Conn. App. 54, 56, 475 A.2d 341 (1984). It is the province of the trial court to pass upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be accorded the evidence. Edgewood Construction Co. v. West Haven Redevelopment Agency, 170 Conn. 271, 272, 365 A.2d 819 (1976); Essex Savings Bank v. Leeker, 2 Conn. App. 98, 102, 476 A.2d 1071 (1984). This court cannot find facts or draw conclusions from primary facts found, but can only review such findings to determine whether they could legally, logically and reasonably be found and whether the trial court could thereby conclude as it did. Appliances, Inc. v. Yost, 186 Conn. 673, 676-77, 443 A.2d 486 (1982); Hallmark of Farmington v. Roy, 1 Conn. App. 278, 280-81, 471 A.2d 651 (1984).
Our review of the record and briefs, with particular attention to the trial court's exhaustive and carefully drawn memorandum of decision, indicates that the factual findings of the court are fully supported by the evidence and its legal conclusions are legally and logically sound.