Partch Motion to Reargue the Probate Court's Decision to Protect Its Own Officers by Not Bringing Suit Against Wilton Meadows on My Mother's Behalf

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.


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


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.


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


5/6

ORDER

The foregoing motion having been duly heard is hereby orderedGRANTED/DENIED.

BY THE COURT

BY_____________________________Judge/Asst. Clerk


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

Documents

Partch Motion to Reargue the Probate Court's Decision to Protect Its Own Officers by Not Bringing Suit Against Wilton Meadows on My Mother's Behalf