Skip to main content

Jury Invalidates Will and Trust Over Undue Influence Claims

Jury Invalidates Will and Trust Over Undue Influence Claims

SC

Sohini Chakraborty

Sohini Chakraborty is a lawyer, with over two years of experience in legal research and analysis. She specializes in working closely with expert witnesses, offering critical support in preparing legal research and detailed case studies.

6 min read
Jury Invalidates Will and Trust Over Undue Influence Claims

Case Background

This probate dispute involved three siblings Jeffrey B. Amato, Jodi Ann Amato, and Michelle Anne Amato who were the children of Bruno Joseph Amato, Jr. Bruno Amato executed a Last Will and Testament and a Living Trust on June 28, 2023, and died shortly after on July 12, 2023. He was domiciled at 337 Cove Road, Stamford, Connecticut at the time of his death. Jodi Ann Amato, who resided in Inman, South Carolina, was named executor under the will and trustee under the trust. Jeffrey Amato, a Stamford resident, contested both documents, claiming his father was not mentally fit to sign them and that Jodi improperly influenced their father. Michelle Anne Amato, a resident of Norwalk, Connecticut, was also named as a Defendant in the action. The case was tried before a jury in the Superior Court for the Judicial District of Stamford/Norwalk.

Cause

Jodi Ann Amato filed a petition to admit the will to probate and sought appointment as executor of the estate. The Stamford Probate Court issued an order of notice on January 22, 2024, setting a hearing request deadline of February 6, 2024, and notifying all interested parties, including Jeffrey, Michelle, and their respective attorneys, of their right to request a hearing. No hearing was requested before the deadline. On February 7, 2024, the Stamford Probate Court, presided over by Judge Gerald M. Fox III, issued a decree admitting the will to probate and appointing Jodi Ann Amato as executor with letters testamentary. The decree noted that the fiduciary was excused by the will from giving a probate bond, and because Jodi was a non-resident, she appointed an agent for service of process in Connecticut. Jeffrey Amato appealed this decree to the Superior Court under Connecticut General Statutes Section 45a-186, and the complaint was filed on February 12, 2024, with a return date of March 12, 2024.

Injury

The Plaintiff alleged that his father lacked the mental capacity to execute the will and trust, and that the documents did not represent his father's true intentions. Jeffrey Amato contended that Jodi Ann Amato exercised undue influence over their father, resulting in estate planning documents that did not reflect Bruno Amato's free and voluntary wishes.

Damages Sought

The Plaintiff sought rejection of both the will and the living trust, a full accounting by Jodi Ann Amato of her actions and doings while serving as fiduciary of the estate, and any other relief the Court deemed proper. The complaint indicated that the amount, legal interest, or property in demand exceeded $2,500, and the Plaintiff also claimed relief in addition to or in place of money or damages. The case was categorized under the Wills, Estates and Trusts case type code W 90.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Plaintiff: Jeffrey B. Amato

·       Counsel for Plaintiff: Bruce L. Elstein, Esq.

Defendants: Jodi Ann Amato (individually, as Executor of the Estate of Bruno Joseph Amato, Jr., and as Trustee); Michelle Anne Amato

·       Counsel for Defendants: Mark F. Katz, Esq.

Claims

First Count — Lack of Testamentary Capacity and Undue Influence (Will)

The Plaintiff alleged in the first count that Bruno Amato, at the time he executed the will on June 28, 2023, was of unsound mind and memory and did not possess sufficient testamentary capacity to make and execute a valid will. The Plaintiff further alleged that the will was executed while Bruno was under the influence, domination, and control of Jodi Ann Amato, and that this influence was unduly and improperly exerted, meaning the will was not the free and voluntary expression of Bruno Amato's testamentary intent. The Plaintiff also noted that the Probate Court decree was issued without a hearing on the record.

Second Count — Lack of Capacity and Undue Influence (Living Trust)

The second count mirrored the first but targeted the Living Trust executed on the same date. The Plaintiff alleged that Bruno Amato lacked sufficient capacity to make and execute the trust. The Plaintiff also alleged that the trust was executed while Bruno was under Jodi Ann Amato's influence, domination, and control, and that the trust was not the free and voluntary expression of Bruno Amato's intent.

Defense

Jodi Ann Amato, in her capacities as executor and trustee, filed her answer on June 27, 2024, through her attorney Mark F. Katz. The Defendants admitted that Jodi was a resident of South Carolina, that the three siblings were Bruno's children, that Bruno executed the will on June 28, 2023, that he died on July 12, 2023, that Jodi filed the petition for probate, and that the Probate Court issued its decree on February 7, 2024. The Defendants denied the allegations that Bruno lacked testamentary capacity and denied the claims of undue influence in the first count. As to the second count addressing the Living Trust, the Defendants incorporated their answers from the first count and specifically denied that the trust was executed under Jodi's undue influence. With respect to the Plaintiff's residency and Michelle Amato's residency, the Defendants stated they lacked sufficient information to form a belief and left the Plaintiff to his proof. The Defendants similarly lacked sufficient information regarding whether the Probate Court decree was issued without a hearing on the record.

Jury Verdict

The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff, Jeffrey B. Amato, on all four questions presented in the verdict form, dated April 6, 2026.

Testamentary Capacity — Will

The jury found that the Plaintiff proved Bruno Amato lacked testamentary capacity to execute the will. The jury answered "YES" to this question.

Capacity — Living Trust

The jury found that the Plaintiff proved Bruno Amato lacked the capacity to execute the Living Trust. The jury answered "YES" to this question.

Undue Influence — Will

The jury found that the Plaintiff proved Bruno Amato was subject to undue influence by Jodi Ann Amato at the time he executed the will. The jury answered "YES" to this question.

Undue Influence — Living Trust

The jury found that the Plaintiff proved Bruno Amato was subject to undue influence by Jodi Ann Amato at the time he executed the Living Trust. The jury answered "YES" to this question.

The verdict form was signed by the jury foreperson, Austin C. Day, on April 6, 2026. The verdict was ordered and accepted on the same date at 3:35 PM, before Judge Borthwick, J., with Sean Dunnelly serving as Trial Administrative Clerk.

Court Documents

Complaint

Jury Verdict

About the Author

SC

Sohini Chakraborty

Sohini Chakraborty is a lawyer, with over two years of experience in legal research and analysis. She specializes in working closely with expert witnesses, offering critical support in preparing legal research and detailed case studies.