Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 45a — PROBATE COURTS AND PROCEDURE · Chapter 802a — Wills: Execution and Construction
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 45a-250 (2025)

(Formerly Sec. 45-160). Who may make a will

✓ laws through the 2024 session: the source has not yet published 2025 Public Acts (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Any person eighteen years of age or older, and of sound mind, may dispose of his estate by will.

(1949 Rev., S. 6950; P.A. 80-476, S. 231; P.A. 88-107, S. 3.)

History: P.A. 80-476 deleted provision stating that every devise purporting to convey all real estate of testator shall be construed to convey all real estate belonging to him at time of death “unless if clearly appears by his will that he intended otherwise”; P.A. 88-107 substituted reference to persons “eighteen years of age or older” for reference to persons “of the age of eighteen”; Sec. 45-160 transferred to Sec. 45a-250 in 1991.

See Sec. 45a-596 re right to appoint guardians by will.

Annotations to former section 45-160:

Prior to 1805, married woman could not devise real estate. 2 D. 163. Evidence as to soundness of mind; 4 C. 208; 9 C. 102; 27 C. 197; 68 C. 551; 71 C. 392; 74 C. 257; 78 C. 410; Id., 429; 96 C. 575; 104 C. 419; physical weakness; 72 C. 320; 94 C. 560; 104 C. 419; declarations and acts of testator; 29 C. 403; 47 C. 450; 74 C. 257; 85 C. 459; 88 C. 93; 91 C. 388; opinion evidence; 72 C. 305; 104 C. 419. Presumption of sanity. 71 C. 392; 77 C. 288; 99 C. 423. Burden of proof. 8 C. 254; 26 C. 22; 80 C. 521; 88 C. 666. Testamentary capacity defined 8 C. 264; 9 C. 102; 27 C. 303; 34 C. 448; 68 C. 435; 71 C. 393; 72 C. 316; 78 C. 410; Id., 429; 88 C. 93; 94 C. 560. Capacity is determined as of time will is made. 9 C. 105; 78 C. 429. Insane delusion. 68 C. 428. Undue influence; presumptions and burden of proof; relationship of parties. 72 C. 319; 73 C. 467; 77 C. 625; 80 C. 446; Id., 513; 85 C. 459; 87 C. 579; 88 C. 136; Id., 214; Id., 394; Id., 655; 91 C. 40; Id., 388; 93 C. 543; Id., 632; 108 C. 580. Evidence admissible. 68 C. 551; 88 C. 394; Id., 655; 91 C. 388. To prevent devise of real estate from carrying all testator owned, intent to contrary must clearly appear. 86 C. 94. State where land lies determines as to its transfer by will. 178 U.S. 186. Amount of proof required; proof otherwise than by subscribing witnesses. 93 C. 55, 56. Devise of “interest in all undivided real estate” construed to include half interest acquired by testator under will of brother dying a few days before him. 113 C. 271. Test of testamentary capacity. 131 C. 219. Cited. 143 C. 498. Burden of proof on issue of undue influence rests on one alleging it except when it appears that a stranger, holding toward a testator a relationship of trust and confidence, is a principal beneficiary under the will and that the natural objects of the testator's bounty are excluded, but such exception does not apply if the testator's child is such principal beneficiary. 147 C. 477. Meaning of “undue influence” as applied to will contests. Id., 566. Statements of testator, made after execution of will, admissible as evidence on issues of testamentary capacity and undue influence. 150 C. 651. Cited. 154 C. 644, 648; 156 C. 580. Burden of proof. 172 C. 529. Cited. 174 C. 193.

Annotations to present section:

Testamentary capacity to execute will does not require proof of testator's knowledge of full and specific condition of property but sufficient mind and memory to know and understand the business in which testator is engaged when executing the will. 206 CA 371.

(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), 1997–2023 · leading case: Bassford v. Bassford, 183 A.3d 680 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bassford v. Bassford, 183 A.3d 680 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 2× “The court finds, from the relevant and probative evidence, that the defendant has met her burden of proof of the due execution of the will. The proper execution of Dr.”
In re Sanzo's Appeal From Prob., 35 A.3d 302 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012). · cites it 2× “” General Statutes § 45a-250. “What constitutes testamentary capacity is a question of law.”
Solon v. Slater, 253 A.3d 503 (Conn. App. Ct. 2021). · cites it 3× “’’ 9 The complaint in the present action was nearly identical to the complaint filed in the first action but for the fact that, in the first action, the plaintiff also had sued Slater in his fiduciary capacity as administrator of the decedent’s estate.”
Detroit Inst. of Arts Founders Soc'y v. Rose, 127 F. Supp. 2d 117 (D. Conn. 2001). · cites it 2× “The affirmative defenses asserted by Mildred Smith and the Rose defendants include: (1) the plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; (2) the plaintiff's action is barred by laches; (3) the DIA’s claim of ownership is defeated by the Statute of Wills,…”
Chase Manhattan Bank v. Comm'r of Revenue Servs., 716 A.2d 950 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1997). · cites it 2× “Like the individual domiciliary or Connecticut corporation, the resident trust may invoke the protection of Connecticut law and thus be responsible to share the costs of government.”
Solon v. Slater, 287 A.3d 574 (Conn. 2023). “Next, the Probate Court determined that ‘there [was] insufficient evidence to show that the disposition of the decedent’s estate in his [2014 will] was a result of undue influence.”
Solon v. Slater, 287 A.3d 574 (Conn. 2023). “Next, the Probate Court determined that ‘there [was] insufficient evidence to show that the disposition of the decedent’s estate in his [2014 will] was a result of undue influence.”
Holloway v. Carvalho, 261 A.3d 57 (Conn. App. Ct. 2021). · cites it 2× “9 General Statutes § 45a-250 provides: ‘‘Any person eighteen years of age or older, and of sound mind, may dispose of his estate by will.’’ 10 Despite the plaintiff’s claim, there was evidence that the decedent had a general sense of what his property consisted of, because his…”
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.