Rider v. Rider

210 Conn.App. 278

270 A.3d 206

Patrick RIDER

v.Brian RIDER, Conservator (Estate of Leigh Rider), et al.

AC 44067

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued December 2, 2021

Officially released January 25, 2022

Matthew S. Carlone, Wethersfield, for the appellant (plaintiff).

Charles D. Houlihan, Jr., Simsbury, for the appellee (defendants).

Alvord, Suarez and Lavine, Js.

ALVORD, J.

The plaintiff, Patrick Rider, appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing his probate appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, he claims that the court incorrectly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over his appeal on the basis that it was untimely.¹ We affirm the judgment.

The following procedural history is relevant to our resolution of this appeal. In July, 2017, Leigh Rider (Rider)² filed a petition with the Probate Court requesting a voluntary conservatorship with the defendant Brian Rider appointed as conservator of his person and estate. The Probate Court granted the petition. One month later, in August, 2017, Rider requested that the court "revoke his voluntary conservatorship," and the Probate Court granted this request. On October 31, 2017, the defendant filed a final account with the Probate Court. The Probate Court then noticed and assigned a hearing on allowance of the final account. Before the hearing was held, on December 2, 2017, Rider died.

The hearing on allowance of the final account was held on December 13, 2017.³ During the hearing, the plaintiff objected to the account, challenging the attorney's fees expended because "the amount of time and itemization ... was not provided to the court" or to the plaintiff and arguing that assets that should have been included in the account were not included. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court asked: "All right. Is that it, [plaintiff]? You done?" The plaintiff responded: "Yes, Your Honor. I am done." The court closed the hearing by saying: "Okay. I'm going to have to spend some time on this myself so I'm going to have to continue this hearing."

On December 22, 2017, the court issued a "Decree: Final Account," allowing and approving the final account without scheduling another hearing. On December 26, 2017, the plaintiff, acting in a self-represented capacity,⁴ filed a "Motion for Revocation of Probate Decree Allowing the Approval of the Accounting of the Conservator, [ General Statutes § 45a-128 (a) and (b) ]" (motion for revocation).⁵ The plaintiff was concerned that records of attorney's fees were not provided, an explanation of claimed irregularities in the account had yet to be discussed, and there had not been a continued hearing on the account.⁶ The plaintiff then requested "a hearing as per [ § 45a-128 ] and an order that [the attorney for the conservatorship] send out his time slips for all pre-conservatorship fees and fees during the conservatorship ...."

On February 8, 2018, the Probate Court denied the motion for revocation pursuant to § 45a-128 (b),⁷ stating that "the request ... does not meet the requirements outlined in ... [§] 45a-128 as all parties in interest have not filed a consent to reconsider, all parties in interest did receive notice of hearing ... no scrivener or clerical error has been identified, and no discovery or identification of parties unknown to the court was made."

Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a complaint, appealing from the Probate Court's decree accepting the final account, with the Superior Court. The complaint was not filed until March 2, 2018. In both the original complaint and the amended complaint, filed March 14, 2018, the plaintiff asserted that he "filed a written motion for reconsideration with the Probate Court reasserting the plaintiff's objections described herein. However, as of the date hereof, no action has been taken on said motion." The plaintiff requested a de novo review of the final account and listed several objections to the account,⁸ arguing that the Probate Court never considered those objections despite stating that it would continue the hearing on the final account in order to do so.

On March 16, 2018, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's appeal. The defendant argued that, inter alia, General Statutes (Rev. to 2017) § 45a-186 (a) "requires the filing of an appeal in a conservatorship matter by filing a complaint in the Superior Court no later than forty-five (45) days after the mailing of the order. The underlying order was mailed on December 22, 2017. The complaint must therefore be filed in Superior Court by no later than February 5, 2018. This case was filed in Superior Court on March 2, 2018, seventy (70) days after the order, and was therefore untimely."

On April 30, 2018, after a hearing, the Superior Court, Cobb, J. , denied the motion to dismiss, concluding that "the plaintiff has timely appealed from an order denying a motion entitled ‘motion for revocation,’ which the plaintiff indicates is [a] motion for reconsideration. As this act of the Probate Court constitutes ‘any order, denial or decree of’ a court of probate, it is an appealable order, and from this order the parties agree the appeal is timely. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is denied."⁹ (Quoting in part General Statutes (Rev. to 2017) § 45a-186 (a)).

On April 30, 2019, the plaintiff filed his brief in support of his appeal to the Superior Court wherein he argued that (1) his rights were prejudiced when the court issued the decree approving the proposed final account without completing the hearing and by not providing notice that the hearing would not be completed and (2) the probate hearing on the final account was "statutorily deficient." Aside from the procedural statement that there was a motion for revocation which was denied, the plaintiff did not raise issues related to the Probate Court's denial of that motion. In response, the defendant made several arguments in support of affirmance of the decree approving the final account and reasserted his contention that the Superior Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the appeal was untimely as it was not filed within the appeal period set forth in General Statutes (Rev. to 2017) § 45a-186 (a).

On January 29, 2020, the Superior Court issued a memorandum of decision. The court first determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's appeal insofar as it related to the Probate Court's decree accepting the final account. Specifically, the Superior Court stated: "In denying the defendant's motion to dismiss, this court found that the plaintiff's appeal from the order denying the motion for revocation was timely.¹⁰ Implicit in that ruling, and to clarify, the plaintiff's appeal from the Probate Court's December 22, 2017 order approving the final account was not timely commenced because it was not filed until March 2, [2018], well beyond the thirty or forty-five day limitations in General Statutes § 45a-186. Thus, the only Probate Court order that the court has jurisdiction to consider in this appeal is the Probate Court's order denying the motion for revocation: it is jurisdictionally barred from considering claims related to the Probate Court's decision approving the defendant's final account." (Footnote added; footnote omitted.) The court continued, "[t]he plaintiff contends that the Probate Court acted in violation of the General Statutes and that it abused its discretion in denying [his] motion [for] revocation. The plaintiff's argument, however, focuses almost exclusively on the procedural deficiencies of the December 13, 2017 hearing on the final account and the Probate Court's order approving the final account. As stated previously, the court lacks jurisdiction to consider these matters because the plaintiff's appeal from the December 22, 2017 decree was untimely." The plaintiff now appeals to this court.

On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the Superior Court incorrectly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's appeal from the Probate Court's decree approving the final account because his motion for revocation tolled the appeal period applicable to that Probate Court decision.¹¹ The defendant asserts that the Superior Court properly dismissed the appeal because it was not filed within forty-five days of the Probate Court's December 22, 2017 decree accepting the final account. We agree with the defendant that the Superior Court correctly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's appeal from the Probate Court's decree approving the final account.

We first set forth our standard of review and relevant principles of law. "Our Supreme Court has long held that because [a] determination regarding a trial court's subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law, our review is plenary. ... Moreover, [i]t is a fundamental rule that a court may raise and review the issue of subject matter jurisdiction at any time. ... Subject matter jurisdiction involves the authority of the court to adjudicate the type of controversy presented by the action before it. ... [A] court lacks discretion to consider the merits of a case over which it is without jurisdiction .... The subject matter jurisdiction requirement may not be waived by any party, and also may be raised by a party, or by the court sua sponte, at any stage of the proceedings, including on appeal. ...

"[W]e are ... mindful of the familiar principle that a court [that] exercises a limited and statutory jurisdiction is without jurisdiction to act unless it does so under the precise circumstances and in the manner particularly prescribed by the enabling legislation. ... Our courts of probate have a limited jurisdiction and can exercise only such powers as are conferred on them by statute. ... They have jurisdiction only when the facts exist on which the legislature has conditioned the exercise of their power. ... The Superior Court, in turn, in passing on an appeal, acts as a court of...