Your state’s pack. New issues arrive periodically on Mondays. Bookmark it. I built this for the Connecticut T&E solo who knows Connecticut’s regional Probate Court system (Conn. Gen. Stat. Title 45a) cold but still loses an afternoon a week hunting the current homestead number, the HUSKY Health / HUSKY C (CMAP) posture, whether the latest Connecticut bar’s ethics opinion changes how you scope an engagement, or whether a recent Connecticut Appellate Court decision just moved the law on capacity, undue influence, or a trustee’s duties. What’s below is what mattered in Connecticut lately — the week’s developments and the recent rulings from the bench.
For licensed attorneys. This pack is general legal information and professional commentary for practicing attorneys — it is not legal advice, does not apply to any specific matter, and creates no attorney-client relationship. Verify every authority against the cited primary source before relying on it with a client. Published by Mike Moss, a Utah-admitted attorney, as an AI-enablement information product; it is not an offer of legal services and is not a representation that the author is admitted to practice in your jurisdiction.
Three developments from the last several weeks that I think actually matter to a Connecticut T&E solo. Each one has a read that lands on your practice specifically — and each one comes with the citation so you can verify the detail yourself before you use it with a client.
The General Assembly’s own bill record confirms Substitute S.B. 400, An Act Concerning Probate Court Operations, passed the Senate April 28 and the House May 5 (in concurrence) and was signed by the Governor June 4, 2026, as Public Act 26-87. Per its official purpose statement, the act makes “various changes concerning Probate Court administrative processes, court procedures and the training of Probate Court judges” and repeals working-group provisions. Reported provisions include expanded notice before involuntary-conservatorship hearings; read the act text for the operative details and effective dates before relying on them.
Probate Court procedure is the water Connecticut T&E solos swim in — an operations act touching court procedures and judge training will surface in your conservatorship and probate filings this fall. Pull the P.A. 26-87 text now and diff your intake and hearing checklists against it.
Conn. P.A. 26-87 (2026 S.B. 400), signed June 4, 2026 · cga.ct.gov bill record
Per the Connecticut General Assembly bill record, 2025 HB-6896 — which would have adopted the Uniform Real Property Transfer on Death Act — died in committee. Real-property TOD deeds remain unavailable in Connecticut; transfer-on-death exists only for securities and registered accounts under Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 45a-468 to 45a-468m.
Don’t let a client — or an out-of-state form vendor — assume a real-property TOD deed is valid in Connecticut; it is not, and a deed drafted on that assumption would fail. Probate-avoidance for Connecticut real property still runs through the established tools (survivorship, trust, life estate), not a TOD deed. This is a live intake check: confirm any ‘beneficiary deed’ the client brings in is for securities, not realty.
Connecticut General Assembly · 2025 HB-6896 (URPTODA, died in committee) · cga.ct.gov · 2025 HB-6896
Per Connecticut Public Act 21-3 (eff. July 1, 2021), the Department of Social Services ended and released its pre-death real-property liens. But Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17b-95 still authorizes post-death recovery against the decedent’s estate for amounts federal law requires Connecticut to recover for long-term-care Medicaid — with priority over unsecured claims except limited last-sickness and funeral expenses. The lien is gone; the recovery is not.
The lien-vs-recovery distinction is the one to keep straight for a Connecticut Medicaid client: the relief from pre-death liens does not mean the estate is safe from recovery after death. Plan the estate on the assumption that § 17b-95 recovery still applies to LTC benefits, and don’t reassure a client that ‘the lien is gone’ without explaining that post-death recovery survives.
Connecticut P.A. 21-3 (eff. July 1, 2021) · Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17b-95 · cga.ct.gov · 2021 PA 21-3
Decisions that bind a Connecticut practitioner — Connecticut’s appellate courts and the federal courts covering Connecticut, including the U.S. Second Circuit — read for what actually changes how you draft, advise, and plan. Trusts and estates broadly, not Medicaid alone: wills and capacity, undue influence, fiduciary duty, trust construction, and estate recovery. One read, the holding, and the official cite.
A settlor created a living trust in 2009, restated it in 2014, designated a cotrustee in 2015, and restated it again in 2021 — the 2021 instrument naming a different person as incapacity trustee and yet another as successor. After a conservator was appointed for the settlor and her estate, he moved the Probate Court to construe the instruments and identify the trustee. The Probate Court held a hearing, ruled that the 2021 restatement revoked the earlier appointments including the 2015 cotrusteeship, named the 2021 designee as incapacity trustee, and ordered the trust funds turned over to him. The disappointed cotrustee appealed to the Superior Court under General Statutes § 45a-186, which reversed on the papers submitted. The Appellate Court reversed that judgment and ordered a new trial: § 45a-186(d) confines an appeal to the record only where a recording of the probate proceedings was made under the enumerated statutes. None was made here, so the appeal was a trial de novo, and the Superior Court could not resolve the merits by reviewing the filings.
The practice point is procedural and it is entirely within your control at the Probate Court stage. Whether a recording gets made determines what the Superior Court appeal actually is — a record review with deference, or a fresh trial with live witnesses and new evidence. Decide which one you want before the probate hearing, not after you lose. If your case is document-driven and the probate judge got the construction right, a record protects that ruling; if you expect to need testimony on capacity, sequence, or the settlor’s intent, the absence of a record is what buys you the de novo trial. The substantive backdrop is worth a look at your own drafting too: this whole fight comes from a restatement that changed trustee designations without expressly addressing an intervening cotrustee appointment.
In re Probate Appeal of Jean Sharp, No. AC 48605 (Conn. App. Ct. July 21, 2026) — reversed; new trial ordered. · JUD.CT.GOV · official opinion
This week in Connecticut for the T&E solo with HUSKY C / Medicaid clients: the developments from the Connecticut Bar Association (Estates & Probate Section), DSS, and the Department of Revenue Services that actually moved your practice this period — each one primary-source verified.
Bar and Medicaid changes land on different schedules and aren’t indexed by practice focus. Every item here was checked against its primary source, with the link, so you can verify before relying on it.