Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 45a — PROBATE COURTS AND PROCEDURE · Chapter 801b — Probate Court Procedures
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 45a-186b (2026)

Appeal from probate court after a hearing on the record: Standard of review

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
In an appeal taken under section 45a-186 from a matter heard on the record in the Probate Court under section 17a-498, 17a-543, 17a-543a, 17a-685 or 19a-131b, sections 45a-644 to 45a-667v, inclusive, or section 51-72 or 51-73, the Superior Court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the Probate Court as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The Superior Court shall affirm the decision of the Probate Court unless the Superior Court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions are: (1) In violation of the federal or state constitution or the general statutes, (2) in excess of the statutory authority of the Probate Court, (3) made on unlawful procedure, (4) affected by other error of law, (5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record, or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. If the Superior Court finds such prejudice, the Superior Court shall sustain the appeal and, if appropriate, may render a judgment that modifies the Probate Court's order, denial or decree or remand the case to the Probate Court for further proceedings. For the purposes of this section, a remand is a final judgment.

(P.A. 07-116, S. 4; P.A. 19-47, S. 12; P.A. 21-100, S. 11; P.A. 22-37, S. 17.)

History: P.A. 19-47 added “under section 17a-498, 17a-543, 17a-543a or 17a-685, sections 45a-644 to 45a-667v, inclusive, or section 51-72 or 51-73” and made technical changes, effective June 26, 2019; P.A. 21-100 added reference to Sec. 19a-131b, effective July 1, 2021; P.A. 22-37 made a technical change.

Because the record is bereft of any evidence regarding defendant or his qualifications to be conservator and because the interested parties did not have the opportunity to weigh in on his selection, the appointment of defendant was therefore arbitrary and constituted an abuse of discretion. 130 CA 243.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2011–2025 · leading case: Falvey v. ZUROLO, 22 A.3d 682 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Falvey v. ZUROLO, 22 A.3d 682 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011). · cites it 16× “As noted, General Statutes § 45a-186b provides in relevant part: "[T]he Superior Court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the Court of Probate as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.”
Barash v. Lembo, 303 A.3d 577 (Conn. 2023). · cites it 3× “82-472 of 1982 Public Acts, pursuant to § 45a- 186, standard of review on appeal from judgments of Probate Court rendered after record of probate proceedings was made ‘‘shall not be a trial de novo,’’ and concluding that, because no record was made of Probate Court proceed-…”
Rutherford v. Slagle, 334 A.3d 988 (Conn. 2025). “the findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions are: (1) In violation of the federal or state constitution or the general statutes, (2) in excess of the statutory authority of the Probate Court, (3) made on unlawful procedure, (4) affected by other error of law, (5) clearly…”
In re Prob. Appeal of Nguyen, 236 A.3d 291 (Conn. App. Ct. 2020). · cites it 7× “We begin with the standard of review applicable to probate appeals, which is set forth in General Statutes § 45a-186b. Section 45a-186b provides in relevant part: ‘‘[T]he Superior Court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the Probate Court as to the weight of the…”
In re Prob. Appeal of Harris, 282 A.3d 467 (Conn. App. Ct. 2022). · cites it 3× “We begin with the standard of review, which is set forth in General Statutes § 45a-186b, applicable to pro- bate appeals taken under General Statutes § 45a-1864 from a matter heard on the record in the Probate Court.”
DeNunzio v. DeNunzio, 95 A.3d 557 (Conn. App. Ct. 2014). · cites it 4× “General Statutes § 45a-186b provides in relevant part: ‘‘[T]he Superior Court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the Court of Probate as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.”
DeNunzio v. DeNunzio, 128 A.3d 901 (Conn. 2016). · cites it 2× “’’ General Statutes § 45a-186b; see also Falvey v.”
Salce v. Cardello, No. SC20701 (Conn. Sept. 26, 2023). · cites it 2× “3d 467 (discussing more limited standard of review set forth in General Statutes § 45a-186b for ‘‘appeals taken under .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.