Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
David Cutler v. Colleen Broderick Valentine (mispelled by plaintiff) et al.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
By a document dated March 27, 2013 David Cutler filed a complaint referred to as Appeal to Superior Court District of New Haven, and was referred to an Estate of Deirdre Broderick. It alleges it is an appeal of the decision of the Probate Court District of Wallingford dated February 27, 2013. It states it is an objection to findings and conclusions adopted by the Probate Court. Attached was a report that the Probate Court adopted a report which found that an unrecorded deed dated June 26, 2006 did not constitute the creation of an interest in the real property owned by Deirdre Broderick as claimed by David Cutler.
The document was not served on the Executrix of the estate, but it named as defendants the children of the decedent Colleen Broderick Valentine, Kyle Broderick, Cody Broderick as well as Deborah Dombek, Executrix of Estate of Deirdre Broderick and Christopher Cutler. The documents were then mailed to the parties named. The court then assigned Docket No. NNH CV13–5034499–S to the documents filed.
On April 23, 2013 a Motion to Dismiss was filed by Colleen Broderick Valentine, a daughter of the decedent who is an attorney. The motion alleges the complaint does not comply with Practice Book Sections 8–1, 8–3, 8–4 and 10–76(c). The record shows plaintiff failed to file a copy of the will as required by Practice Book Section 10–76(c), or to file a bond as required by Practice Book Section 8–5(b).
On April 22, 2013 Attorney Christopher Stratton filed an appearance for David Cutler. The names of this action changed after that date to Plaintiff David Cutler v. Colleen Broderick Valentine, et al. with the same Docket Number of CV 13–5034499–S. An amended complaint was filed by Attorney Stratton on June 3, 2013 which was the same as the original Complaint filed by David Cutler.
The plaintiff's amended complaint and the memorandum filed June 3, 2010 does not address the procedural defects claimed by the defendant. Plaintiff's argument relates to the conclusions reached by the Probate Court decision reached after a hearing regarding the plaintiffs claim that he had a valid claim to the property. The Probate judge found title was in the deceased's name at the time of her death, the deed signed by her on June 26, 2006 was not recorded by decedent prior to her death and it was found to be of no effect. The plaintiff filed that deed dated June 26, 2006 after her death, and it did not convey any interest in the property to the plaintiff. The court in reaching its decision relied upon evidence decedent conveyed title to her children by a recorded deed on January 7, 2007, and they reconveyed title back to their mother who then acquired a $60,000.00 mortgage on December 10, 2010, and all of these transactions were recorded and showed she was the only title owner at the time of her death. The will dated in December 2007 bequeath the home to her children.
Deirdre Broderick died September 21, 2011 and on September 23, 2011 plaintiff David Cutler recorded a previously unrecorded deed dated June 26, 2006. The decedent's will was probated and the Probate Judge on February 27, 2013 found that a deed executed by decedent on June 26, 2006 was ineffective and the objection of David Cutler to the provisions of the will was denied. The plaintiff filed the pro se appeal from the judge's decision seeking to change the title of her home and the devising of title to her three children in her will.
The defendant's motion to dismiss addresses procedural defects related to the named defendants, and the lack of jurisdiction as claimed by the defense. In addition the documents filed by the pro se plaintiff regarding the Probate Court order as well as the report of the Probate Magistrate clearly support the order of Judge Phillip A. Wright that the deed dated June 26, 2006 was ineffective after the death of the decedent.
Motion to dismiss of defendant is thereby granted.
Howard F. Zoarski
Judge Trial Referee
Zoarski, Howard F., J.T.R.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: NNHCV135034499S
Decided: June 18, 2013
Court: Superior Court of Connecticut.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)