Smith v. Trinity United Methodist Church of Springfield, Massachusetts
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the officially released date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the officially released date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** JANE LONG SMITH ET AL. v. TRINITY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH OF SPRINGFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS (SC 16928) Borden, Norcott, Katz, Palmer and Vertefeuille, Js. Argued March 13 officially released April 15, 2003 James W. Sherman, for the appellants (plaintiffs). Michelle M. Begley, for the appellee (defendant). Opinion PER CURIAM. In this appeal,1 the plaintiffs, Jane Long Smith, Brett Cleaver and Jennifer Long Cleaver, the executrix of the estate of Evelyn Pay Long (decedent), appeal from the judgment of the trial court, in favor of the defendant, Trinity United Methodist Church of Springfield, Massachusetts, on the plaintiffs claim regarding the construction of a certain deed from the decedent to the defendant. The plaintiffs claim that the trial court improperly: (1) determined that the language of the deed was ambiguous so as to permit the court to rely on extraneous evidence to ascertain the decedent s intent in executing the deed; and (2) concluded that the doctrine of the destructibility of contingent remainders did not apply to the deed.2 Our examination of the record and briefs and our consideration of the arguments of the parties persuade us that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The issues were resolved properly in the trial court s complete and well reasoned memorandum of decision. See Smith v. Trinity United Methodist Church of Springfield, Massachusetts, 47 Conn. Sup. 618, A.2d (2003). Because that memorandum of decision fully addresses the arguments raised in this appeal, we adopt it as a proper statement of the issues and the applicable law concerning those issues. It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion contained therein. See Davis v. Freedom of Information Commission, 259 Conn. 45, 55, 787 A.2d 530 (2002). The judgment is affirmed. 1 The plaintiffs appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appel- late Court, and we transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (c) and Practice Book § 65-1. 2 In their brief and oral argument before this court, the plaintiffs also claimed that the trial court improperly rejected their claim that the decedent had held the property only as trustee and, therefore, had no power to convey it to the defendant. Our examination of the record, however, discloses that the plaintiffs did not present this claim to the trial court. Moreover, the trial court did not advert to such a claim in its memorandum of decision, and the plaintiffs did not seek an articulation regarding any such claim. We, therefore, decline to consider it in the present appeal.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
