The court noted that in Baskin's Appeal from Probate, supra, 194 Conn. 643, the court "held that `where the question is merely the sufficiency of the pleading rather than the existence of a viable cause of action,' a motion to dismiss should be denied." Flor v. Pohl, 95 Conn.App. 555, 561, 899 A.2d 46 (2006). The Supreme Court discussed both prongs of classical aggrievement in Ciglar v. Finklestone, 142 Conn. 432, 114 A.2d 925 (1955), in which the plaintiff filed an appeal from a Probate Court's decree ordering a will to probate.
"The reasons of appeal serve essentially the same functions in defining issues and limiting evidence as does the complaint in any civil matter." Flor v. Pohl, 95 Conn.App. 555, 560-61, 899 A.2d 46 (2006). Every reasons that the failure of Beckett to have filed reasons of appeal, a fact evident from the record, puts all of the Probate Court’s rulings in issue.
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Flor v. Pohl, 95 Conn.App. 555, 559, 899 A.2d 46 (2006). "The responsibility for alleging a factual basis for aggrievement for the purpose of taking a probate appeal falls squarely on the person taking the appeal."
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Flor v. Pohl, 95 Conn.App. 555, 559, 899 A.2d 46 (2006). "Merely possessing a legal interest in the estate ... is not enough to confer standing upon a party.
(Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Flor v. Pohl, 95 Conn.App. 555, 559, 899 A.2d 46 (2006); see e.g., Molleur v. Perkins, 82 Conn.App. 468, 472 n.6, 844 A.2d 916, cert. denied 270 Conn. 912, 853 A.2d 527 (2004) (holding that, in motion for appeal of probate decree, representation that plaintiff was heir at law of deceased was sufficient to establish aggrievement for purposes of challenging probate decree admitting codicil); Luciano v. Choszczyk, 165 Conn. 24, 25-26, 327 A.2d 564 (1973) (holding that allegation that appellant was heir at law was sufficient to establish aggrievement for purposes of challenging probate decree admitting will into probate); cf. Doyle v. Reardon, 11 Conn.App. 297, 304, 527 A.2d 260 (1987) (holding that plaintiff did not have legally protected interest in decedent's estate solely by virtue of plaintiff's blood relation to testator as her grandson); Fitzhugh v. Fitzhugh, 156 Conn. 625, 626-27, 239 A.2d 513 (1968) (holding that plaintiff did not hav
" Heussner v. Hayes, supra, 289 Conn. 805. "Failure fully to describe a claimant's interest in a probate decree is not a flaw that deprives the Superior Court of subject matter jurisdiction." Flor v. Pohl, 95 Conn.App. 555, 558, 899 A.2d 46 (2006). "Although aggrievement is a jurisdictional necessity . . . [i]f an appellant is aggrieved but fails to show the basis for that aggrievement in the motion to appeal, the appeal is merely voidable.
" Id., 822. "[B]eing an heir does not automatically establish aggrievement for the purposes of a probate appeal." Flor v. Pohl, 95 Conn.App. 555, 558, 899 A.2d 46 (2006). One case in which the son of a conserved person was found to be aggrieved by the appointment of a conservator is Marchentine v. Brittany Farms Health Center., Inc., 84 Conn.App. 486, 491, 854 A.2d 40 (2004).
An appeal from the decree of a Probate Court is a trial de novo. See Flor v. Pohl, 95 Conn.App. 555, 560, 899 A.2d 46 (2006). "An appeal from a Probate Court to the Superior Court is not an ordinary civil action . . . When entertaining an appeal from an order or decree of a Probate Court, the Superior Court takes the place of and sits as the court of probate . . .
An appeal from the decree of a Probate Court is a trial de novo. See Flor v. Pohl, 95 Conn.App. 555, 560, 899 A.2d 46 (2006). "An appeal from a Probate Court to the Superior Court is not an ordinary civil action . . . When entertaining an appeal from an order or decree of a Probate Court, the Superior Court takes the place of and sits as the court of probate . . .
In order to establish standing to appeal from a probate matter, a party must show that he or she is aggrieved by any order, denial or decree of a court of probate in any matter, unless otherwise specially provided by law . . . The test for determining whether a party has been aggrieved by a Probate Court decision is whether there is a possibility, as distinguished from a certainty, that some legally protected interest that [the party] has in the estate has been adversely affected . . . This interest may be a direct pecuniary one, or it may consist of an injurious effect upon some legally protected right or status of the appellant.'" Flohr v. Pohl, 95 Conn.App. 555, 559, 899 A.2d 46 (2006). Aggrievement