James M. McConnell v. Kathleen Anne McConnell Hewitt et al. (2013)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1. This is an appeal from the Probate Court for Southeastern CT Regional Probate District, District No. 30, brought pursuant to General Statutes § 45a–186.

2. The appeal involves the John Edward McConnell Living Trust (aka inter vivos trust).   John Edward McConnell (John E. McConnell) was the settlor thereof and at the times here pertinent was a resident of Stonington, Connecticut.

3. The appeal is from and directed at decrees/orders of the Probate Court entered/dated January 25, 2011, and December 8, 2011.   Copies of these orders/decrees were attached to the original Complaint herein as Exhibits A and B, respectively.   See Complaint and Reasons for Appeal, January 6, 2012. [100.30.]

4. Neither the original or a copy of the John Edward McConnell Living Trust is a part of the record in this case.   However, the first page of an “Amended and Restated Trust Agreement,” which recites:  “This Trust may be referred to as the John Edward McConnell Living Trust dated March 13, 2000,” is a part of the case record.   The date of the “Amended and Restated Trust Agreement” appears, based on other documents in the record, to be November 26, 2008.   However, only the first page of the “Amended and Restated Trust Agreement” is a part of the record in this case.

5. The John Edward McConnell Living Trust (the Trust) was created on or about March 13, 2000, and amended in December 2001 and August 2007.   It was amended, modified and restated by the “Amended and Restated Trust Agreement.”

6. The “Amended and Restated Trust Agreement” states:

I have three children, Amy L. Sheridan, Kathleen Anne McConnell Hewitt, and James Mathis McConnell, and they are referred to in this Trust as ‘my children.’   For reasons which I consider sufficient, including lack of contact between us in recent years, I am making only limited provisions for my son James Mathis McConnell and his issue in this Trust.  [Emphasis in original.]

7. The plaintiff herein is “James Mathis McConnell” (James M. McConnell), son of the Settlor.   James M. McConnell is a named beneficiary of the Trust.

8. On or about June 28, 2010, with the assistance of counsel, Kathleen Anne McConnell Hewitt (Hewitt) filed an Application for Trust Accounting, Reimbursement of Trust, Removal of Trustee, Appointment of Successor Trustee, Removal of Attorney in Fact, Restriction on Changing Residence of John Edward McConnell, and Payment of Attorneys Fees (Application for Trust Accounting, etc.) with the Probate Court.   A copy of the Application for Trust Accounting, etc., is not a part of the record in this case.

9. Thereafter, on August 6, 2010, an Amendment to the Application for Trust Accounting, etc., was filed by Hewitt through her counsel.   A copy of the Amendment is not a part of the record in this case.

10. The interested parties, Hewitt and Amy McConnell Sheridan (Sheridan) are daughters of the Settlor, John E. McConnell and are both named beneficiaries of the Trust.

11. The Plaintiff is a named beneficiary of the Trust and an interested person entitled to notice of the filing of the Application for Trust Accounting, etc., and all of the notices issued for all ensuing doings of the Probate Court on the case.

12. The “Amended and Restated Trust Agreement” states on its first page:

1.3 Purpose. My overall purpose in creating this trust is to promote the well-being of my family, to encourage the pursuit of the values I respect, and to preserve family wealth for future generations.  [Emphasis in original.]

13. Prior to June 2010, the Probate Court had no knowledge of or involvement with the Trust.

14. General Statutes §§ 45a–186 and 45a–187, prescribe the way to initiate an appeal from probate;  the relevant parts of each are set forth:

[A]ny person aggrieved by any order, denial or decree of a court of probate in any matter ․ may ․ appeal therefrom to the Superior Court.   Such an appeal shall be commenced by filing a complaint in the superior court in the judicial district in which such court of probate is located ․ The complaint shall state the reasons for the appeal.   A copy of the order, denial or decree appealed from shall be attached to the complaint ․

General Statutes § 45a–186(a).

Each person who files an appeal pursuant to this section shall mail a copy of the complaint to the court of probate that rendered the order, denial or decree appealed from and serve a copy of the complaint on each interested party ․ [S]ervice of the copy of the complaint shall be by state marshal, constable or an indifferent person.   Service shall be in hand or by leaving a copy of at the place of residence of the interested party being served or at the address for the interested party on file with said court of probate ․

General Statutes § 45a–186(b).

Not later than fifteen days after a person files an appeal under this section, the person who filed the appeal shall file or cause to be filed with the clerk of the Superior Court a document containing (1) the name, address and signature of the person making service, and (2) a statement of the date and manner in which a copy of the complaint was served on the court of probate and each interested party.

General Statutes § 45a–186(c).

If such persons [of the age of majority] have no notice to be present and are not present, or have not been given notice of their right to request a hearing, such appeal shall be taken within twelve months ․

General Statutes § 45a–187.

15. The complaint for this appeal was filed on January 6, 2012 in the superior court for the judicial district of New London, the judicial district wherein the Probate Court for Southeastern CT Regional Probate District, District No. 30, is located.

16. The persons of interest upon whom the a copy of the complaint was served were Hewitt, Sheridan, and Richard M. Hoyt, Jr., described in the Complaint as attorney in fact for the settlor.

17. The Statement required by General Statutes § 45a–186(c) was filed by plaintiff with this court on January 19, 2012, i.e., well within fifteen days of the filing of the appeal.   The Statement contains the name, address, and signature of the person making service, namely, State Marshal Joseph J. LoGioco, 10C Easy Street, New London, Connecticut 06320.   Statement Regarding Service of Complaint and Reasons for Appeal.   January 19, 2012.[101]  Copies of the State Marshal's Returns of Service are attached to the Statement.

18. The Probate Court was served by in hand service on Susan Cardinal, the clerk of the Probate Court, on January 9, 2012.

19. Hewitt was served at her usual place of abode on January 6, 2012.

20. Sheridan was served by service on the Secretary of the State on January 9, 2012, and by mail on January 10, 2012, to 48 Harbor Heights Road, Scituate, Massachusetts 02066.  General Statutes § 52–59b.

21. Richard M. Hoyt was served in hand on January 6, 2012.

22. “The meaning of § 45a–186(a), as amended by P.A. 07–116, ascertained both from its text and in relation to other statutes, is plain and unambiguous.   It provides that an appeal of an order of the Probate Court is commenced by filing a complaint in the Superior Court.   A complaint is filed when it is lodged with the clerk of court.”  Corneroli v. D'Amico, 116 Conn.App. 59, 65, cert. denied, 293 Conn. 928 (2009).

23. The commencement of this appeal from the Probate Court was done properly and was timely filed.

24. At all times relevant, the Settlor, John E. McConnell, was alive.

25. At the time this case was in the Probate Court (roughly June 2010 through December 2011), the Rules of the Probate court included:

1.9.  Notice of Other Proceedings

Except as otherwise provided by law, all other notices of proceedings in the court of probate other than those specified in Rules 1.2 through 1.7 shall be given by the judge, clerk or assistant clerk of the court of probate who shall certify on the record the date and manner in which such notice has been given.

The PETITIONER or fiduciary must provide the judge, clerk or assistant clerk with the name and address of each person entitled to notice in connection with the petition.

26. Rule 1.9 was applicable to the filing of the Application for Trust Accounting, etc. and the proceedings of the Probate Court which ensued on the Application for Trust Accounting, etc.

Connecticut Practice Book (4th Ed.1996 [2000] ) Rule 1.9, p. II–8.

27. Rule 1.9 was applicable to the proceedings of the Probate Court concerning the Application for Trust Accounting, etc.

28. Hewitt, although represented by counsel, did not comply with the requirements of Rule 1.9.

29. Hewitt, as PETITIONER, did not provide the name and address of each person entitled to notice in connection with the Application.

30. Hewitt, in filing the Application for Trust Accounting, etc., assumed and undertook the role of a fiduciary for the Trust and the beneficiaries thereunder, including her brother, the plaintiff, with the attendant responsibilities and obligations of a fiduciary.

31. James M. McConnell, plaintiff herein, was a person entitled to notice in connection with the Application for Trust Accounting, etc.

32. The Commentary for Rule 1.9 states:

The purpose of this Rule is to require that all notices for probate proceedings be sent by court personnel rather than by fiduciaries, PETITIONERS or other interested parties.   The method of notice for such proceedings shall be as specified in the statutes, rules of probate practice or within the discretion of the court of probate as set forth in the order of notice.

As with applications for administration and admission of a will to probate, the PETITIONER shall have the burden of ascertaining the correct name and address of all persons entitled to notice in any proceeding and of proving to the satisfaction of the judge of probate that all proper diligence was used to ascertain them.   Such names and addresses should be submitted together with the petition for the probate proceeding.

33. Hewitt never offered to fulfill her burden “of proving to the satisfaction of the judge of probate that all proper diligence [was] used to ascertain” the names and addresses of all persons entitled to notice, specifically her brother, James M. McConnell, plaintiff herein.

34. Although Hewitt had the burden of ascertaining the correct name and address of all persons entitled to notice, she did not even inform the Probate Court of the existence of her brother, James M. McConnell, whom she well knew was a named beneficiary of the Trust, much less his name or address.

35. Based on the actions of the Probate Court, this court could conclude Hewitt's Application for Trust Accounting, etc., did not mention her brother James M. McConnell.

36. Hewitt, although she had a duty to do so, did not specifically inform, or point out to the Probate Court that her brother, James M. McConnell, plaintiff herein, was living, a named beneficiary of the Trust, a necessary party, an interested party, indispensable party, and entitled to Notice.

37. The Application for Trust Accounting, etc., in the main, was directed at her sister, Sheridan, for her admitted defalcations as Co–Trustee.

38. The Application for Trust Accounting, etc., alleged, among other matters, that Sheridan, exploiting her position as Co–Trustee of the Trust, in February 2010 distributed $409,000 to herself from funds belonging to the Trust, thereby committing a Class B (twenty-year) felony, Larceny in the First Degree, General Statutes § 53a–122.

39. Sheridan had not informed her father of her intent to take, or, the actual taking of, the $409,000 for herself.

40. James M. McConnell, the plaintiff herein, was not served or otherwise informed of the filing of the Application for Trust Accounting, etc.

41. James M. McConnell, plaintiff herein had and has a vital or critical interest in the proceedings initiated by the Application for Trust Accounting, etc., and the filing party, Hewitt, had an obligation to inform him of the filing of the Application for Trust Accounting, etc., and a continuing duty to inform the Probate Court of his critical and necessary party status and his unqualified right to notice.

42. By its Order dated July 1, 2010, the Probate Court set a hearing date of August 4, 2010, in regard to the Application for Trust Accounting, etc.

43. The Probate Court's July 1, 2010 Notice of the August 4, 2010 hearing listed those persons known to the Probate Court as having an interest and entitled to Notice including Hewitt and Sheridan.

44. The Probate Court's July 1, 2010 Notice of the August 4, hearing did not include James M. McConnell and the Notice was not sent to James M. McConnell.

45. The Probate Court's July 1, 2010 Notice of the August 4, 2010 hearing was received by Hewitt and Sheridan.   It showed the Probate Court did not know of James M. McConnell and his having an interest therein.

46. Although each was represented by separate counsel, neither Hewitt nor Sheridan, informed the Probate Court of the absence/omission of James M. McConnell from the July 1, 2010 Notice to persons entitled to notice and to whom notice should be sent.

47. On July 13, 2010, the Probate rescheduled the matter until September 15, 2010, by Notice dated July 13, 2010.

48. The Probate Court's July 13, 2010 Notice of the rescheduling to September 15, 2010, was sent to those persons known to the Probate Court as having an interest and entitled to Notice therein including Hewitt and Sheridan.

49. The Probate Court's July 13, 2010 Notice of the rescheduling of the hearing to September 15, 2010, did not include James M. McConnell and the Notice was not sent to James M. McConnell.

50. The Probate Court's July 13, 2010 Notice of the rescheduling of the hearing to September 15, 2010, was received by Hewitt and Sheridan.   It showed the Probate Court did not know of James M. McConnell and his having an interest therein.

51. Although each was represented by separate counsel, neither Hewitt nor Sheridan, informed the Probate Court of the absence/omission of James M. McConnell from the Probate Court's July 13, 2010 Notice of the rescheduling to September 15, 2010, to persons entitled to notice and to whom notice should be sent.

52. On September 7, 2010, the Probate continued the matter until November 3, 2010.

53. The Probate Court's September 7, 2010 Notice of the continuance to November 3, 2010, was sent by the Probate Court to those persons known to the Probate Court as having an interest therein, including Hewitt and Sheridan.

54. The Probate Court's September 7, 2010 Notice of the continuance to November 3, 2010, did not include James M. McConnell and was not sent to James M. McConnell.

55. The Probate Court's September 7, 2010 Notice of the continuance to November 3, 2010, was received by Hewitt and Sheridan.   It showed the Probate Court did not know of James M. McConnell and his having an interest therein.

56. Although each was represented by separate counsel, neither Hewitt nor Sheridan, informed the Probate Court of the absence/omission of James M. McConnell from the Probate Court's September 7, 2010 Notice of the rescheduling to November 3, 2010, to persons entitled to notice and to whom notice should be sent.

57. Thereafter the Probate Court continued the matter until December 1, 2010.

58. The Probate Court's Notice of the December 1, 2010 hearing was sent by the Probate Court to those persons known to the Probate Court as having an interest therein including Hewitt and Sheridan.

59. The Probate Court's Notice of the December 1, 2010 hearing did not include James M. McConnell and was not sent to James M. McConnell.

60. The Probate Court's Notice of the December 1, 2010 hearing was received by Hewitt and Sheridan.   It showed the Probate Court did not know of James M. McConnell and his having an interest therein.

61. Although represented by separate counsel, neither Hewitt nor Sheridan, informed the Probate Court of the absence/omission of James M. McConnell from the Probate Court's Notice of the December 1, 2010 hearing sent to persons entitled to notice and to whom notice should be sent.

62. Thereafter the Probate Court continued the matter until December 15, 2010.

63. The Probate Court's Notice of the December 15, 2010 hearing was sent by the Probate Court to those persons known to the Probate Court as having an interest therein including Hewitt and Sheridan.

64. The Probate Court's Notice of the December 15, 2010 hearing did not include James M. McConnell and the Notice was not sent to James M. McConnell.

65. The Notice of the December 15, 2010 hearing was received by Hewitt and Sheridan.   It showed the Probate Court did not know of James M. McConnell and his having an interest therein.

66. Although represented by separate counsel, neither Hewitt nor Sheridan, informed the Probate Court of the absence/omission of James M. McConnell from the Notice of the December 15, 2010 hearing sent to persons entitled to notice and to whom notice should be sent.

67. Thereafter the Probate Court continued the matter until January 5, 2011.

68. The Probate Court's Notice of the January 5, 2011 hearing was sent by the Probate Court to those persons known to the Probate Court as having an interest therein including Hewitt and Sheridan.

69. The Notice of the January 5, 2010 hearing did not include James M. McConnell and was not sent to James M. McConnell.

70. The Probate Court's Notice of the January 5, 2011 hearing was received by Hewitt and Sheridan.   It showed the Probate Court did not know of James M. McConnell and his having an interest therein.

71. Although represented by separate counsel, neither Hewitt nor Sheridan, informed the Probate Court of the absence/omission of James M. McConnell from the Notice of the January 5, 2011 hearing sent to persons entitled to notice and to whom notice should be sent.

72. On January 5, 2011, the Probate Court was in session on the Hewitt Application for Trust Accounting, etc.   Apparently, the court had in hand an unsigned copy of a PARTIAL STIPULATION AND REQUEST FOR ORDER/DECREE submitted by Hewitt and/or Sheridan.   Other than counsel for Hewitt and counsel for Sheridan, it is not clear who else was in attendance at the January 5, 2011 Probate Court proceeding.

73. However, in a copy of PARTIAL STIPULATION AND REQUEST FOR ORDER/DECREE which is included in the record of this case, the following is recited:

This matter has been noticed by the Court for further proceedings to occur on January 5 at 2:00 p.m., at which time ․ appeared on behalf of Kathie M. Hewitt, and appeared on behalf of Amy Sheridan, and represented to the Court that the parties are prepared to sign and enter into the following Stipulation, and at which time the Court reviewed the terms of this Stipulation with the counsel present.

74. Based on the foregoing, this court could find that the probate judge and the two (named) attorneys present (counsel for Hewitt and counsel for Sheridan) reviewed all “the terms of this Stipulation.”

75. The Stipulation contained the following section:

5.  Mrs. Sheridan, Trustee, shall within five business days after receipt (by her or her attorneys) of an Order by the Probate Court upon this Stipulation, make a distribution of funds from the Trust in the form of a gift to the son of John E. McConnell, being James Mathis McConnell, said distribution made into a Trust for the benefit of Mr. James Mathis McConnell, in the sum of Thirty Five Thousand Dollars ($35,000), such amount calculated to equal what would be distributed to Mr. James Mathis McConnell under the Trust at John E. McConnell's death.   The distribution to the Trust for Mr. James Mathis McConnell may be delayed as is reasonably necessary to allow for the drafting of the Trust required for the distribution.

76. Section 3 of the Stipulation, contains the following:

The five business day periods referenced below as to distributions to Mrs. Sheridan and to a Trust for the benefit of James Mathis McConnell, shall similarly be extended to ten days, as reasonably necessary, for the liquidation of securities and the issuance of checks.   Mrs. Sheridan shall not make distributions to herself under this Stipulation, until the distributions to Ms. Hewitt have been made.

77. If the Probate Judge reviewed this Section 5 and/or the quoted sentence from Section 3 with the attorneys representing Hewitt and Sheridan and the Probate Judge gave or indicated tentative approval of Section 5 thereof, this court could conclude that the probate judge was not aware of or appreciate the fact that although James Mathis McConnell was a named beneficiary of the Trust and, although entitled to Notice from the Probate Court he had not been given any notice of the Hewitt Application for Trust Accounting, etc., or any of the numerous hearings scheduled by the Probate Court regarding the Application for Trust Accounting, etc.

78. This court could also find that neither the attorney for Sheridan nor the attorney for Hewitt, both attorneys being present at the January 5, 2011 court proceeding, although under a duty to do so, alerted the probate judge that James Mathis McConnell was a named beneficiary of the Trust and that as such he was entitled to be notified of each of the proceedings that the Probate Court had held in connection with the Application for Trust Accounting, etc., but had not been notified and had not known of same or had attended any of them.

79. The court could also conclude that the principal beneficiaries of the Stipulation, Hewitt and Sheridan, had not made the Probate Court aware of these deficiencies in its Notices and proceedings although they were under a duty to do so because it was inimical to their interests.

80. It was obvious to Hewitt and Sheridan that the Probate Court was proceeding erroneously.   Neither Hewitt or Sheridan took any action to get the Probate Court on the right path because it was inimical to each of their interests.

81. The Rules of Professional Conduct include Rule 3.3 Candor toward the Tribunal which states in part:

(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

(1) ․ fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;

82. The attorneys present, which included the attorney(s) representing Hewitt and the attorney(s) representing Sheridan were under a duty to inform the court immediately at a minimum that (1) James M. McConnell was a beneficiary of the Trust, (2) as such was entitled to notice regarding the proceedings on the Trust for Trust Accounting, etc., (3) had not been given any notice of the proceedings which had taken place or the proceeding then occurring, (4) as a result of the failure to notify had not attended any of the proceedings which had taken place, and (5) was not present at the proceeding then taking place.

83. The duty stated in the preceding paragraph was a continuing one.

84. No attorney so informed the Probate Court of the above on January 5, 2011 or at any time before or since.

85. This induced the Probate Court to commit reversible error when it entered the Orders/Decrees on January 25, 2011.

86. According to the Stipulation, Hewitt was to receive at least $600,000 pursuant to the Stipulation

87. In addition, Hewitt's attorneys fees of $35,000 were to be paid by the Trust.

88. According to the Stipulation, Sheridan was to receive $166,000 from the Trust.   Stipulation, § 4, p. 2.

89. According to the Stipulation, “The distribution made to Mrs. Sheridan in February 2010 of $409,000 shall not be sought to be recovered into the Trust, since a deduction for that amount plus interest has been made into the distributions to be made herein above.”   Stipulation, § 8, ¶ 2, p. 3.

90. The provisions of in paragraphs 87 and 88, above, were powerful incentives for Hewitt not to specifically inform the Probate Court of the fatal flaw in the Notices it had sent out re the Application for Trust Accounting, etc., and the resulting absence of Notice to a named beneficiary with resulting absence of the named beneficiary from the court proceedings.

91. The provisions of in paragraphs 89 and 90, above, were powerful incentives for Sheridan not to specifically inform the Probate Court of the fatal flaw in the Notices it had sent out re the Application for Trust Accounting, etc., and the resulting absence of Notice to a named beneficiary with resulting absence of the named beneficiary from the court proceedings.

92. The provisions of the Stipulation described in paragraphs 87–90 above became orders of the Probate Court entered on January 25, 2011.

93. According to the Stipulation, several items were unresolved.   The Stipulation also contained the following:

The parties agree that they shall engage in a period of information gathering and review in an effort to reach an agreement as to any amounts that may be claimed due the Trust from Amy L. Sheridan and her husband, James G. Sheridan, and also any amounts that may be claimed due to the Trust from Kathleen M. Hewitt, and that steps shall be taken to obtain and share all financial records that pertain to the Trust and Mr. McConnell's finances from August 1, 2007 to the present.   Certain questions have been asked of Kathleen M. Hewitt by letter of ․ dated October 12, 2010, and Kathleen M. Hewitt agrees to exert best efforts to provide a response to said questions within two weeks of the receipt by her, or her attorneys, of an Order entered by the Court on this stipulation.   Amy L. Sheridan agrees to take prompt steps to obtain and provide to the attorneys for Kathleen M. Hewitt and also Attorney Tedford and Richard M. Hoyt, copies of all checks (front and back) and evidence of all distributions including EFT distributions from the AG Edwards accounts, for the period August 1, 2007, to the present, regarding the financial affairs of John Edward McConnell.

94. The court has not been informed of any action which may have been taken on the matters recited in Stipulation § 8, p. 3.

95. Section 8 of the Stipulation contained the following:

The parties reserve the right to request the Court to compel an accounting at any such time as they believe they are not making progress on efforts to obtain and review the financial records and come to some agreement between themselves as to the amount of the reimbursement owed to the Trust.

Stipulation, § 8, ¶ 3, p. 3–4.

96. Apparently, the parties to the Stipulation were of the view that there was some “amount [of] reimbursement owed to the Trust.”

97. Sometime in the Fall of 2010, the plaintiff herein, James M. McConnell became aware there were proceedings in the Probate Court involving the Trust.

98. Plaintiff, or his attorney, went to the Probate Court to find out what was going on in the Probate Court.

99. As a result of these inquiries, the Probate Court scheduled a status Conference to be held on December 8, 2011.

100. The Probate Court states:

At a court of probate held at the time and place of hearing set by the Court, together with any continuances thereof, as of record appears, on the petitioner's application for status conference to review implications of not notifying an heir of earlier Court proceedings regarding the John McConnell Trust and non-payment of statutory probate fees.

101. The case record does not contain a copy of any applications filed by the Plaintiff for a status conference “to review implications of not notifying an heir of earlier Court proceedings regarding the John McConnell Trust and non-payment of statutory probate fees.”

102. The case record does not contain any applications filed by the Plaintiff with the Probate Court.

103. The court held a Status conference on December 8, 2011.

104. The case record of this court does not contain any information as to those in attendance or any record of what occurred at the status conference other than Order(s)/Decree(s) dated December 8, 2011.

105. The Order(s)/Decree(s) are as follows:

PRESENT:  Hon. Nicholas F. Kepple, Judge

After due hearing, THE COURT FINDS that:

Notice was given in accordance with any order of notice previously entered.

James M. McConnell, child of John E. McConnell, was not listed as an interested party and did not receive notice of any hearings prior to this status hearing.

James M. McConnell has been given access to all healthcare information by Kathie McConnell Hewitt and access to all financial information by Deborah J. Tedford, Esq.

Outstanding probate fees have been paid in full.

And it is ORDERED AND DECREED that:

James M. McConnell is satisfied with the results from the status hearing and as such the John E. McConnell Living Trust file shall be Closed and Recorded.   “Dated at Groton, Connecticut this 8th day of December 2011.”

106. Although the Probate Court found that the Plaintiff “was not listed as an interested party and did not receive notice of any hearings prior to this status hearing,” the Probate Court did not find or conclude that as a result, the proceedings on the Application for Trust Accounting, etc., were so infected to the Plaintiff's detriment that they were a nullity and should be vacated.

107. The Probate Court's order that the “John E. McConnell Living Trust file shall be Closed and Recorded” had the effect of concluding that the failure to give Plaintiff notice of the proceedings had not effected the validly of those proceedings.

108. Such a conclusion is error.

WHEREFORE

1. The interested parties are ordered to show cause why the appeals should not be sustained and the decrees/orders of the Probate Court entered/dated January 25, 2011, and December 8, 2011 be vacated.

2. The proceedings in this case are stayed.   Parties and counsel are to take no further action in this case until the Court's rules on this Order to Show Cause.

3. A hearing on the Order to Show Cause is scheduled for Wednesday, October 16, 2013 at 10:00 am.

4. The parties may file pre-hearing briefs addressing the factual statements made herein and also addressing the conclusions of law stated herein.   Any other concerns should be mentioned along with the rationale.   Such non-mandatory briefs, if, any must be filed by Friday, October 4, 2013.

Parker, J.T.R.

Parker, Thomas F., J.T.R.