As experienced litigation attorneys can explain, summary judgment is a procedural mechanism that allows a court to resolve a case without a trial when there are no genuine disputes of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. This tool has long been available under both Connecticut and federal procedural rules, and for decades, many courts operated under the assumption that summary judgment was unavailable in cases arising from probate matters or within probate courts. Setting aside nearly a century of this restrictive jurisprudence, the Connecticut Supreme Court in Rutherford v. Slagle has now confirmed that summary judgment is, in fact, an available procedural device in both probate courts and probate appeals.
By confirming that summary judgment is available in probate matters, the court has made it possible to resolve certain legal disputes – such as questions of trust interpretation or fiduciary duty – more efficiently and with lower litigation costs. Read on to learn more about this case and why it is particularly significant for high-net-worth individuals and their advisors.
Case Summary
A recent Connecticut Supreme Court case, Rutherford v. Slagle, SC 21066 (May 27, 2025), overturned a decade-long procedural ruling and held that summary judgment is an available procedural device in probate courts and appeals from probate courts. This ruling further held that on appeal, the Superior Court is required to arrive at an independent determination of the issue presented at probate court and such determination should not be limited by the reason stated in the probate appeal.
In Rutherford v. Slagle, William A. Rutherford (“William”), as grantor, and himself and his wife, Joyce M. Rutherford (“Joyce”), as trustees, established a revocable trust agreement on February 11, 2002, as later amended and restated on December 12, 2004 (“William’s Trust”).
Upon William’s death, a...
