890 A.2d 166 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006)
John N. Swanson executed his will on March 1, 1990.1 The residuary clause bequeathed one-half of the residue property to Hazel Brennan of Guilford, Connecticut, if she survives me.2
Brennan was Swanson's stepdaughter.3 Kathleen Smaldone, Brennan's child, was also named as a residuary legatee in the will.4
Brennan died on January 2, 2001.5 Swanson died seventeen days later.6 The will was admitted to probate on February 9, 2001.7
On April 26, 2002, the Probate Court concluded that the antilapse statute was not operative and that the bequest to Brennan lapsed, passing to the intestate estate.8 Fred Ruotolo and Charlene Ruotolo, beneficiaries under the will, filed a motion for appeal to the Superior Court from the Probate Court decision.9 Smaldone filed a cross appeal.10
Following a de novo hearing in the Superior Court, the court affirmed the judgment of the Probate Court.11 Smaldone appealed the Superior Court decision to the Appellate Court of Connecticut.12
Whether the antilapse statute applies to a bequest that includes words of survivorship conditioning the gift on the legatee surviving the testator?13
Pursuant to General Statutes § 45a-441, when a devisee or legatee, being a child, stepchild, grandchild, brother or sister of the testator, dies before him, and no provision has been made in the will for such contingency, the issue of such devisee or legatee shall take the estate so devised or bequeathed.14 Words of survivorship alone do not constitute a provision made in the will for the contingency of the legatee's predeceasing the testator.15
Yes. The antilapse statute applies because the will's inclusion of the phrase if she survives me in the bequest to Hazel Brennan does not amount to a provision for the contingency under § 45a-441.16 Brennan was the testator's stepdaughter, a relation covered by the statute, and she died seventeen days before John N. Swanson.17
Kathleen Smaldone, as Brennan's child and issue, is entitled to take the share.18 The courts below erred in concluding that the survivorship language rendered the statute inoperative, as the statute is remedial and requires liberal construction, with doubts resolved in favor of its operation.19 The testator did not unequivocally express an intent to disinherit the line of descent or provide an alternate bequest.20
The antilapse statute applies, preventing the bequest from lapsing and directing it to the issue of the predeceased legatee.21