Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 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. 2. The Courts decision is erroneous for the following reasons; 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.

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 in Fact .. (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 or causes of action Marjorie Partch wants to prosecute on behalf of the

conserved person Dorothy Partch are not personally known by the Conservator, Matthew A. Caputo and are only known to Marjorie Partch and/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.

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 Road Westport, CT 06880 Telephone No. 226-6168 Juris No. 101498 HER ATTORNEY

ORDER The foregoing motion having been duly heard is hereby ordered GRANTED/DENIED. BY THE COURT

BY_____________________________ Judge/Asst. Clerk

CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that on August 20, 2013 a copy of the foregoing was delivered to all counsel of records and pro se parties by email or electronically as follows: Kieran Costello, Esquire 1238 Post Road Fairfield, CT 06824 Dan Ford, Esquire 167 Old Post Road Southport, CT 06890 Jessica Partch 20 Devil Garden Road South Norwalk, CT 06854 Michael Anthony Rubino, Jr., Esquire Law Office of Michael Anthony Rubino, Jr. 196 North Street Stamford, CT 06901 Angelo Maragos, Esquire, Counsel for Wilton Meadows Goldman Gruder & Woods, LLC 200 Connecticut Avenue Norwalk, CT 06854 Charles Hulin Assistant Attorney General 55 Elm Street Hartford, CT 06106 _______________________ Richard H. Raphael

Вам также может понравиться