Legal Opinion
Urrata v. Izzillo
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided October 12, 1983No. (2316)PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBorden, J.
The sole issue in this appeal 1 is whether the plaintiff, a judgment creditor of an heir at law, is aggrieved within the meaning of General Statutes § 45-288 2 by an order of the Probate Court admitting a will disinheriting that heir. We hold that the plaintiff is not aggrieved.
Rose Urrata left one child, Joseph Urrata. The plaintiff is Joseph’s former wife and his judgment creditor pursuant to a judgment for alimony and child support arrearages. After Rose’s death but prior to the filing of her will for probate, the plaintiff filed a judgment lien against Joseph’s purported interest 3 in…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Schlesinger v. WisconsinSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Maloney v. PacSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1981
- Beard's Appeal from County CommissionersSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1894
- O'LEARY v. McGuinnessSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1953
- Hartford Kosher Caterers, Inc. v. GazdaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1973
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Baskin's Appeal from ProbateSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1984
- Burns v. Gleason Plant Security, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1987
- Buchholz's Appeal from ProbateConnecticut Appellate Court · 1987
- Jaser v. FischerConnecticut Appellate Court · 2001
- Bishop v. BordonaroConnecticut Appellate Court · 1989
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.