The plaintiff, Arthur E. Scott, Jr., executor of the Estate of Barbara H. Scott (the “Estate), brought a summary process action to evict the defendant, Mark M. Heinonen, who resided on certain real property that was owned by the decedent. The property was specifically devised to the defendant and his brother in the decedent’s will. However, the plaintiff sought to evict the defendant pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47a-26d in order to market the property for sale and satisfy the Estate’s financial obligations. The Superior Court ruled against the plaintiff and concluded that he lacked the power to evict without a contract of sale or a further order of the Probate Court. Judgment of possession was entered in favor of the defendant.
On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the Superior Court incorrectly found he did not have the authority to evict the defendant. The plaintiff claimed he was authorized by the Probate Court to market the property for sale. The Appellate Court found that the plaintiff did have the power to bring the summary process action in his role as the fiduciary and legal representative of the Estate. The Estate held title to the property pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 45a-321 and the Probate Court properly ordered the plaintiff to satisfy debts against the estate by selling the property pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 45a-428(a). Therefore, the judgment of the Superior Court was reversed and the case was remanded so that judgment could be entered in favor of the plaintiff.
Should you have any questions relating to wills, trusts, estates or probate issues generally, please feel free to contact Attorney Russell J. Sweeting, a lawyer in the firm’s Westport, Connecticut office in Fairfield County by telephone at (203) 221-3100 or by e-mail at email@example.com.
Scott v. Heinonen, 118 Conn. App. 577, 985 A.2d 358 (2009)