Mitchell v. Silverstein
Docket: AC 21180
Court: Connecticut Appellate Court; November 20, 2001; Connecticut; State Appellate Court
Morris Silverstein appeals a trial court judgment ordering the partition of property by sale. He contends the court improperly approved the sale to a nonparty, alleging constructive fraud by the court and committee, and asserting that the court failed to consider the minimal equitable interests of two landlocked property owners and did not sell to the highest bidder. The appellate court affirms the trial court's decision. Key facts include that Dorothy S. Mitchell initiated the action for accounting and partition against her brothers, including Silverstein, after inheriting property. The court denied Silverstein’s motions to dismiss claims against an attorney and a law firm involved in the case. A partition by sale was ordered, and the committee sold the property to Michael Taylor. The appellate court declined to review Silverstein's claims, stating they were raised for the first time on appeal, which is not permitted. Additionally, the court noted that Silverstein did not provide an adequate record for the appellate review, as he failed to submit necessary documentation or articulate his claims properly. The responsibility for providing a complete record lies with the appellant, which Silverstein did not fulfill. Any review of the defendant's claims is deemed speculative without the necessary factual and legal conclusions from the trial court. Although the court has occasionally considered claims based on an unsigned transcript, this requires a sufficiently detailed account of the trial court's findings. If the transcript lacks clarity regarding the court's factual conclusions, the claims cannot be reviewed. The judgment is affirmed, with concurrence from other judges. Morris Silverstein, the sole defendant in this appeal, raised six issues, three of which relate to the trial court's judgment of partition by sale and are simply restatements of previously dismissed issues. Consequently, the court will not address these: 1) Whether the trial court's determination that physical partition is impractical is void for lack of jurisdiction due to the absence of an initial attempt at physical division; 2) Whether the court's conclusion that a sale serves the parties' interests is void for lack of sufficient subordinate findings; and 3) Whether the finding that physical partition is impractical is unsupported by facts. There are ongoing disputes among the siblings in both the Probate and Superior Courts. A judgment of partition by sale is appealable. The plaintiff participated in oral arguments but did not file a cross appeal as required, leading the court to disregard the plaintiff's brief and arguments.