Geci v. Boor
178 Conn. App. 585
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Decedent William F. Klee died in 2013; his daughter Alice K. Geci (the plaintiff) was appointed executrix and was a joint account holder with right of survivorship on multiple bank accounts totaling ~ $400,000.
- Probate Court found the joint accounts were held for convenience only, that decedent did not intend survivorship vesting, that Geci undervalued estate assets, imposed a constructive trust, and removed Geci as executrix.
- Geci appealed to Superior Court under § 45a-186; court conducted a de novo bench trial on (1) whether joint accounts vested in Geci at decedent’s death and (2) whether Geci should be reinstated as executrix.
- Trial court concluded the statutory presumption of survivorship under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 36a-290(b) was not rebutted by clear and convincing evidence, held the accounts vested in Geci, and reinstated her as executrix.
- Dispute facts included contradictory testimony about whether Geci concealed survivorship rights, decedent’s competence and intent, and competing valuations for a tractor and two vehicles used in estate inventory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Geci) | Defendant's Argument (Boor) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether joint accounts vested in surviving co-owner at decedent’s death | Statutory presumption under §36a-290(b) vests ownership in survivor; defendant failed to rebut by clear and convincing evidence | Accounts were added for convenience or by undue influence/fraud; confidential relationship existed so burden should shift to Geci | Court held presumption not rebutted; Geci became sole owner of joint accounts |
| Whether a confidential/fiduciary relationship existed (shifting burden) | No confidential relationship; decedent was capable and exercised independent financial control | Geci occupied confidential role and exerted influence over decedent | Court found no confidential relationship; no burden shift; finding supported by evidence of decedent’s financial competence |
| Whether Geci fraudulently concealed survivorship rights (impacting intent) | Any alleged concealment irrelevant to decedent’s intent; testimony was contradictory and trial court credited Geci | Geci concealed survivorship nature from decedent, his attorney, and others to effectuate transfer | Court declined to find fraudulent concealment; credited conflicting testimony favoring no concealment |
| Whether Geci should be reinstated as executrix given contested asset valuations | Geci’s valuations were reasonable and matched town tax assessments; no disqualifying misconduct | Undervalued assets (tractor, vehicles) show mismanagement warranting removal | Court reinstated Geci; values were supported by evidence and reinstatement was not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Bunting v. Bunting, 60 Conn. App. 665 (rebuttable presumption that joint account creates intent to vest in survivor; burden shifts if confidential relationship)
- Garrigus v. Viarengo, 112 Conn. App. 655 (challenge to survivorship presumption where transfers were found fraudulent)
- State v. Lavigne, 307 Conn. 592 (discusses §36a-290 and treats ownership of joint accounts as a factual issue for the trier of fact)
- Driscoll v. Norwich Sav. Soc., 139 Conn. 346 (ownership upon death of joint account holder is a factual question)
- Dacey v. Connecticut Bar Assn., 170 Conn. 520 (explains the clear-and-convincing proof standard)
- Ramsdell v. Union Trust Co., 202 Conn. 57 (standard and discretion governing removal of an executor/executrix)