203 Conn.App. 197
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background
- Fred H. Rettich’s 2012 will bequeathed the residuary estate to Our Lady of Mercy School (OLM) “or its successor, for its general uses and purposes.”
- Prior to death Rettich had donated $500,000 to OLM; a parish letter referenced a $200,000 endowment, but the will contained no trust language or spending restrictions.
- Rettich’s estate paid $4,745,110.86 to OLM in 2015; OLM was announced closed by the Archdiocese in 2018 and a new diocesan school (ESCA) was to open in Branford.
- Some OLM parents formed Our Lady of Mercy School of Madison, Inc. intending to continue OLM’s mission in Madison and raised funds to that end.
- Plaintiffs (executor, former students, parents, and the successor corporation) sued the Archdiocese seeking a constructive trust, return or conveyance of the residuary funds; Archdiocese moved to dismiss for lack of standing.
- The trial court granted dismissal, concluding the residuary bequest was an outright charitable gift (not a trust) and that standing to enforce a completed charitable gift is vested exclusively in the Attorney General; plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rettich’s residuary bequest created a charitable trust/endowment or an outright gift | Bequest should be read as an endowment/constructive charitable trust benefiting students or a successor school | Language is an absolute gift: no trustee, no beneficiary named, no spending restrictions or preservation of principal | Court held it was an outright gift, not a trust (plain will language "for its general uses and purposes" conveys full control) |
| Whether plaintiffs have standing under the common-law "special interest" exception to enforce the gift | Plaintiffs claim the special-interest exception gives them standing to enforce the donor’s intent (students, parents, successor corp) | Only the Attorney General has standing to enforce completed charitable gifts; special-interest exception applies only to charitable trusts | Court held plaintiffs lack standing; special-interest exception limited to charitable trusts and does not extend to completed absolute gifts |
| Whether executor (Derblom) has standing to recover funds for the estate if the alleged trust failed | As executrix, Derblom argued she could protect estate interests and recover funds if trust failed | The gift was completed; estate retained no legal interest once funds were delivered to OLM | Court concluded the bequest was a completed gift and did not reach merits of alternative executor claim; plaintiffs lacked standing |
Key Cases Cited
- Carl J. Herzog Foundation, Inc. v. University of Bridgeport, 243 Conn. 1 (1997) (donor has no standing to enforce a completed charitable gift; Attorney General enforces charitable gifts)
- Russell v. Yale University, 54 Conn. App. 573 (1999) (once donor transfers interest in charitable fund, donor/claimants under donor lack standing)
- Grabowski v. Bristol, 64 Conn. App. 448 (2001) (special-interest exception applied in context of testamentary charitable trust where plaintiffs showed a special interest)
- Parley v. Parley, 72 Conn. App. 742 (2002) (describes gifts as immediate, irrevocable transfer of title without donor control)
- Steenek v. University of Bridgeport, 235 Conn. 572 (1995) (addresses limits of applying trust-law principles to charitable corporations and special-interest standing)