Conn. Gen. Stat. § 45a-186b

Current with legislation from the 2024 Regular and Special Sessions.

Section 45a-186b - Appeal from probate court after a hearing on the record: Standard of review

In an appeal taken under section 45a-186 from a matter heard on the record in the Probate Court under section 17a-498, 17a-543, 17a-543a, 17a-685 or 19a-131b, sections 45a-644 to 45a-667v, inclusive, or section 51-72 or 51-73, the Superior Court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the Probate Court as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The Superior Court shall affirm the decision of the Probate Court unless the Superior Court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions are:

(1) In violation of the federal or state constitution or the general statutes,

(2) in excess of the statutory authority of the Probate Court,

(3) made on unlawful procedure,

(4) affected by other error of law,

(5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record, or

(6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. If the Superior Court finds such prejudice, the Superior Court shall sustain the appeal and, if appropriate, may render a judgment that modifies the Probate Court's order, denial or decree or remand the case to the Probate Court for further proceedings. For the purposes of this section, a remand is a final judgment.

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 45a-186b

( P.A. 07-116 , S. 4 .)

Amended by P.A. 22-0037, S. 17 of the Connecticut Acts of the 2022 Regular Session, eff. 10/1/2022.

Amended by P.A. 21-0100, S. 11 of the Connecticut Acts of the 2021 Regular Session, eff. 7/1/2021.

Amended by P.A. 19-0047, S. 12 of the Connecticut Acts of the 2019 Regular Session, eff. 6/26/2019.

Because the record is bereft of any evidence regarding defendant or his qualifications to be conservator and because the interested parties did not have the opportunity to weigh in on his selection, the appointment of defendant was therefore arbitrary and constituted an abuse of discretion. 130 CA 243 .