partch motion to reargue the probate court's decision to protect its own officers by not bringing...
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/29/2019 Partch Motion to Reargue the Probate Court's Decision to Protect Its Own Officers by Not Bringing Suit Against Wilt
1/6
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
COURT OF PROBATE
COURT OF PROBATE DISTRICT OF NORWALK/WILTON
DISTRICT NO. 103
In The Matter of Dorothy Partch a/k/a Dorothy S. Partch
MOTION TO REARGUE
Marjorie Partch, an interested party hereby moves to reargue the decision
regarding Marjorie Partchs request for Conservator to commence suit against
Wilton Meadows and represents the following:
1. The Courts decision is erroneous for the following reasons;
2. The Courts decision is contrary to the evidence and is based on
erroneous facts presented to it and presented to the Guardian Ad
Litem, whos opinion was rendered without sufficient knowledge as
to the actual facts surrounding the circumstances which lead to
Dorothy Partch being conserved and her Estate dissipated.
3. Wilton Meadows, has during the course of this litigation failed to
admit that it had in its file clear evidence that Marjorie Partch had a
Designation of Conservatorship, Power of Attorney and Healthcare
Proxy from her Mother, Marjorie Partch.
4. Up until the date of the Courts decision, denying suit, Wilton
Meadows has failed to admit that said misrepresentation was
knowing.
-
7/29/2019 Partch Motion to Reargue the Probate Court's Decision to Protect Its Own Officers by Not Bringing Suit Against Wilt
2/6
5. Contrary to the position of Wilton Meadows, it has admitted under
oath and submitted documentation that it knew that it had a Power
of Attorney, Designation of Conservatorship and Healthcare Proxy
in its file, at the time it applied for the Conservatorship of Marjorie
Partch.
6. In an Affidavit signed on May 3rd, 2011, Romayne Sheriff, the
Finance Director of Wilton Meadows as of said date, stated the
following:
On or about April 25, 2010, the Defendant (Dorothy Partch)executed a Resident Admission Agreement through her Attorney inFact .. (See Exhibit A annexed)
7. The Power of Attorney in question in the file of Wilton Meadows as
of April 10, 2010, clearly indicated that Marjorie Partch was the
Healthcare Agent, Attorney in Fact for healthcare decisions and
Designation of Conservator for Dorothy Partch.
8. Wilton Meadows has continued to fail to admit the existence of said
documents in its file up through and including the date of the
decision of this Court, concerning the Conservator commencing
suit.
9. The previous Conservator Matthew Caputo, in requesting the Court
exercise its discretion and appoint an independent Guardian Ad
Litem stated the following:
The fact that the factual basis underline the cause of action orcauses of action Marjorie Partch wants to prosecute on behalf of the
-
7/29/2019 Partch Motion to Reargue the Probate Court's Decision to Protect Its Own Officers by Not Bringing Suit Against Wilt
3/6
conserved person Dorothy Partch are not personally known by theConservator, Matthew A. Caputo and are only known to Marjorie Partchand/or the employees of Wilton Meadows.
This is clearly a misrepresentation, as the Affidavit previously
referenced was filed in the matter of Wilton Meadows Limited Partnership
versus Matthew Caputo as Conservator in May of 2011in Superior Court
in Bridgeport.
10. Accordingly, the statement of Mr. Caputo, it is a misrepresentation,
since he clearly had knowledge that Wilton Meadows had the
Designation of Conservatorship, Power of Attorney and Healthcare
Proxy from Dorothy Partch to Marjorie Partch at the time he applied
for an Independent Guardian Ad Litem.
11. Accordingly, both Wilton Meadows and Matthew Caputo have
misrepresented the underlying facts regarding the liability of Wilton
Meadows to the Estate of Dorothy Partch.
12. The Court in its decision also indicated that based on the financial
condition of the conserved party, and the fact that she cannot
testify, the suit would be highly contested and lengthy.
13. This should not impact on the merits of the underlying suit against
Wilton Meadows, especially in light of the fact that the fraudulent
misrepresentation is clear based on the facts previously set forth in
this Motion.
-
7/29/2019 Partch Motion to Reargue the Probate Court's Decision to Protect Its Own Officers by Not Bringing Suit Against Wilt
4/6
14. The Court further found that the matter would be costly, lengthy
and speculative.
15. This is clearly not the case based on the clear fraud committed and
further the litigation would not be costly, since counsel for Marjorie
Partch has indicated that he would be willing to handle this matter
on a contingent fee basis for the Estate.
16. The interest of justice require that the claim of the Estate of Dorothy
Partch be brought to recover funds inappropriately paid to Wilton
Meadows, the Conservator and attorneys in this matter, all based
on the clear knowing fraudulent misrepresentation of Wilton
Meadows.
Dated at Westport Connecticut this ___ day of August, 2013.
THE PETIONNER
BY________________________ Richard H. Raphael
19 Ludlow RoadWestport, CT 06880Telephone No. 226-6168Juris No. 101498HER ATTORNEY
-
7/29/2019 Partch Motion to Reargue the Probate Court's Decision to Protect Its Own Officers by Not Bringing Suit Against Wilt
5/6
ORDER
The foregoing motion having been duly heard is hereby orderedGRANTED/DENIED.
BY THE COURT
BY_____________________________Judge/Asst. Clerk
-
7/29/2019 Partch Motion to Reargue the Probate Court's Decision to Protect Its Own Officers by Not Bringing Suit Against Wilt
6/6
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that on August 20, 2013 a copy of the foregoing wasdelivered to all counsel of records and pro se parties by email or electronically asfollows:
Kieran Costello, Esquire1238 Post RoadFairfield, CT 06824
Dan Ford, Esquire167 Old Post Road
Southport, CT 06890
Jessica Partch20 Devil Garden RoadSouth Norwalk, CT 06854
Michael Anthony Rubino, Jr., EsquireLaw Office of Michael Anthony Rubino, Jr.196 North StreetStamford, CT 06901
Angelo Maragos, Esquire, Counsel for Wilton MeadowsGoldman Gruder & Woods, LLC200 Connecticut AvenueNorwalk, CT 06854
Charles HulinAssistant Attorney General55 Elm StreetHartford, CT 06106
_______________________Richard H. Raphael