Probate and Trust Disputes

Probate and trust disputes can be extremely difficult to resolve, given the intensity and subjectivity of some decisionmakers’ positions. Mediators must bring patience and emotional intelligence to these matters to uncover the deeper barriers to resolution. At the same time, these situations call out for remedies that cannot be achieved through court decisions and thus offer unique benefits to mediated outcomes.

These cases require an understanding of the laws and procedures of the various forums in which they play out. Connecticut’s probate courts provide an alternative process to the courts of common jurisdiction, with advantages and disadvantages for parties. These can be brought to the attention of parties and counsel to help guide reasoned decisions.

Often a family dispute is grounded in historical experiences, which if not uncovered can be roadblocks to good decisions. In some mediations, airing those histories in private session can release restraints on progress. Conversely, new harm can ensue from some expressions. Deft management of the communications in a mediation can achieve what lawyers and courts could not accomplish.

Fisher brings a wealth of experience specific to the field of trust and probate disputes. He has both prosecuted and defended such matters as:

  • Prudent investor breaches;
  • Will contests;
  • Fiduciary misconduct;
  • Abuse of discretionary distributions;
  • Beneficiary status based on disputed paternity and adoptions;
  • Claims of waste by life beneficiaries;
  • Pursuit of decedent’s missing assets;
  • Health care agency and end-of-life decisions;
  • Charitable trusts;
  • Inter vivos accountings

He has handled these matters through evidentiary hearings in both probate court and superior court, as well as federal court and in the state courts of California. His work on charitable trusts has entailed donor/beneficiary disputes, as well as work with the Attorney General’s charities unit to structure resolutions.

Fisher also has performed services for the probate courts in multiple respects. Most recently he has provided the mandatory training for all current probate judges under Connecticut General Statutes Section 45a-27(b)(2)(a), (Constitutional Law and Due Process). He has given training sessions on handling probate hearings both to the Connecticut probate judges and to the National College of Probate Judges. He served as co-chair of the Connecticut Bar Association’s Task Force on the Future of the Probate Court system and has provided guidance on campaign finance issues to the Probate Court Administrator.