Most attorneys advising a client after a probate decree focus on the facts, the equities, or the perceived wrongdoing that occurred in the estate. But Moore v. Ferguson is a reminder that even serious allegations may never be reviewed if a plaintiff lacks standing, misses a Connecticut appellate deadline, or misses the deadline to file a motion to open judgment in a Connecticut probate appeal.
This case illustrates three key reminders for trial counsel handling or helping clients evaluate probate appeals in Connecticut.
Factual and Procedural Background in this Connecticut Probate Appeal
After Clifton Dewayne Bryant passed away, his will was admitted to probate. It gave his cousin, the plaintiff Larry Allen Moore, a specific piece of real estate and appointed him as both executor and trustee. The remainder of the estate, including Bryant’s interest in 40 Wall Street, LLC, was given to Bryant’s wife.
When a dispute arose over the ownership of that LLC, the decedent’s former business partner, Steven Ferguson, petitioned the Probate Court to determine ownership interests. The court held an evidentiary hearing and concluded that, under a 2017 operating agreement, the decedent’s estate and Ferguson each held a 50% interest in the company.
Moore, appearing in his individual capacity, appealed that decision to the Superior Court. He alleged that the operating agreement was fraudulent, Ferguson had forged the decedent’s signature, and Moore himself was aggrieved because he had invested time and money into the business and operated his barbershop from the property for years.
The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Moore lacked standing to challenge the probate court decree. More than seven months later, Moore moved to open the judgment, again asserting fraud. The court denied the motion as untimely and unsupported by evidence of fraud on the trial court. The Appellate Court affirmed.
The Connecticut Appellate Court’s Decision in the Probate Appeal
The Appellate Court affirmed. It held that because Moore failed to appeal the judgment of dismissal, he could not challenge the merits of the judgment on appeal.
As a result, the Appellate Court explained that the only issue properly before it was whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Moore’s motion to open.
In reviewing whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to open, the Appellate Court did not consider the merits of the underlying probate appeal; rather, it considered only whether the trial court’s denial was unreasonable and in clear abuse of its discretion.
On the merits of that question, the Court noted that Moore’s motion to open—filed more than seven months later—was untimely under both General Statutes § 52-212a and Practice Book § 17-43 (governing motions to open judgments). And although Moore acknowledged this, he argued that the timeliness requirement should not apply to him because he argued that Ferguson committed fraud.
Relying on prior caselaw, the Appellate Court noted that, a “party that files an untimely motion to open based on fraud must show that fraudulent conduct induced the court to render the underlying judgment.” Moore’s allegations of fraud, however, did not relate to the trial court’s judgment; rather, he alleged that Ferguson committed fraud in connection with the operating agreement at issue in the probate court. Ultimately, Moore failed to allege facts to demonstrate that the alleged fraud induced the trial court’s determination that he lacked standing, and therefore, even assuming the truth of Moore’s allegations of fraud, he failed to prove that such fraud impacted the trial court’s judgment.
Finally, the Appellate Court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion denying the late motion to open without first holding an evidentiary hearing. The Appellate Court determined that the trial court “reasonably could have concluded that the resolution of the motion to open did not depend on the validity of the operating agreement and, therefore, there was no basis to hold an evidentiary hearing.”
Three Lessons from Moore
1. The Court Will Only Review What Was Properly Appealed—And Only by Someone With Standing
The Superior Court never reached the question of fraud because it dismissed Moore’s appeal for lack of standing. As the Appellate Court explained, Moore’s personal allegations—about his investments in the property or his long-standing business use—did not create a legal interest in the LLC under the will. He was not a devisee of that asset, and his role as executor or trustee did not give him standing in his individual capacity.
Appellate standing requires a legally protected interest adversely affected by the decree. Before filing any appeal, confirm who the appellant is, what hat they wear (executor, trustee, beneficiary, heir), and whether they are personally aggrieved.
2. Miss the 20-Day Appeal Deadline? You Cannot Later Reach the Merits Through a Late Motion to Open
Moore did not file an appeal within 20 days of the judgment of dismissal. That proved fatal to the appeal. And although Connecticut law allows parties to move to open a judgment within four months, a motion filed outside that 4-month window cannot resurrect the right to challenge the merits of the judgment.
Moore’s only remaining path was to challenge the denial of his motion to open—and the Appellate Court reviewed that decision solely for abuse of discretion.
Lesson for trial attorneys: when judgment enters—whether in Superior Court or following a probate appeal—calendar the 20-day appeal deadline immediately. If you miss it, your client’s appellate options narrow significantly.
3. Not All Allegations of Fraud Get You Through the Door
Moore’s late motion to open included detailed allegations: that the operating agreement was forged, notarized improperly, and backdated; that the town clerk believed it was fraudulent; and that the decedent lacked capacity when it was signed.
But even accepting those allegations as true, they did not show fraud on the trial court that influenced the trial court’s denial of the motion to open—the only kind that justifies reopening a judgment after four months. The Superior Court’s decision rested solely on standing, not the validity of the operating agreement. And as the Appellate Court explained, even if the agreement were invalid, that fact still would not have given Moore standing in his individual capacity.
If you are raising fraud in a motion to open, make sure it relates directly to the judgment you are trying to undo—and that it impacted the court that entered it.
Final Thoughts
Moore v. Ferguson is not about who should own the LLC. It is about appellate structure—deadlines, standing, and the limits of review. For any attorney evaluating whether to pursue or defend a probate ruling, this probate appeal reinforces the importance of:
- Identifying the correct probate appeal appellant who has standing to challenge the probate decree,
- Meeting the 20-day window to preserve merits-based review, and
- Understanding when post-judgment motions are (and are not) a viable fallback.
A compelling factual narrative cannot overcome a lack of jurisdiction or an untimely filing. And as Moore shows, even serious fraud allegations may never be heard if the procedural groundwork is not in place.
If you are evaluating whether to file a motion to open judgment or advising a client on next steps after a probate court appeal in the trial court, timing and framing are critical.
I work with trial counsel at the post-judgment stage to assess next steps.
If you are considering a motion to open or a probate appeal to the Connecticut Appellate Court, I offer strategic support. I consult on timing, preservation, and procedural posture—and am available to handle probate appeals once they are ready for the Appellate Court.
To connect, please contact me to discuss.