Hynes v. Jones
167 A.3d 375
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Thomas Hynes died intestate in the September 11, 2001 attacks; he and his wife Carolyne Hynes (plaintiff) were domiciled in Norwalk. Their daughter Olivia was born after his death.
- Plaintiff was appointed administrator of Thomas’s estate by the Norwalk Probate Court and filed a claim with the federal September 11 Victim Compensation Fund. The fund allocated $1,271,940.12 to Olivia and paid that sum to plaintiff as Olivia’s "representative payee."
- Plaintiff and Olivia later moved to Weston (Westport probate district); plaintiff did not seek to transfer the probate or guardianship proceedings. Olivia’s funds were initially commingled with plaintiff’s account and significant sums were spent before the Probate Court intervened.
- Norwalk Probate Court appointed plaintiff guardian of Olivia’s estate and later appointed Sharon Jones successor guardian ad litem; Probate Court limited plaintiff’s ability to use Olivia’s award for Olivia’s support and ordered accounting. Plaintiff did not appeal that decree.
- Plaintiff moved to dismiss guardianship proceedings arguing: (1) Norwalk Probate Court lacked jurisdiction under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 45a-629(a) because Olivia did not reside in Norwalk when the guardianship application was filed; and (2) payment to plaintiff as a federal "representative payee" placed the funds beyond Connecticut probate supervision.
- Superior Court (de novo) and the Appellate Court affirmed: Norwalk had jurisdiction because Olivia was domiciled in Norwalk when she first became entitled to the award; the representative-payee payment did not negate state statutory protections for minors’ property.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Norwalk Probate Court had jurisdiction to appoint a guardian of Olivia’s estate under § 45a-629(a) | Section 45a-629(a) requires residency in the district at the time the guardianship application is filed; Olivia resided in Westport then, so Norwalk lacked jurisdiction | Jurisdiction exists where the minor was domiciled when she first became entitled to property; Norwalk supervised decedent’s estate and must protect minor beneficiaries | Held: Norwalk had jurisdiction — Olivia was entitled to property while domiciled in Norwalk; probate retains jurisdiction unless proceedings are transferred under § 45a-599 |
| Whether Olivia’s entitlement to the fund award constituted "property" and when entitlement occurred | Olivia was not "entitled" because funds were not payable to her until age 18; no protective duty arose while in Norwalk | The award is a form of property (present or future interest); entitlement arose at birth (as heir) and included right to proceeds of wrongful-death claim or fund | Held: The award is property and Olivia became entitled while domiciled in Norwalk (triggering guardianship duty) |
| Whether payment to plaintiff as federal "representative payee" preempted Connecticut’s guardianship/protection statutes | Payment to the representative payee placed funds beyond state control and obviated need for guardianship or probate supervision | State statutes protecting minors’ property still apply; federal disbursement to a payee does not abrogate state protections absent explicit preemption | Held: Payment to representative payee did not exempt Olivia’s award from Connecticut statutory protections; no federal preemption shown |
| Whether relocation of minor to another probate district divested original probate court of jurisdiction | Move to Westport divested Norwalk of jurisdiction when guardianship proceedings later occurred | Original probate retains jurisdiction until guardian or interested person moves to transfer and court orders transfer in minor’s best interests (§ 45a-599) | Held: Relocation did not automatically divest Norwalk; plaintiff never moved to transfer, so Norwalk retained jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Lopiano v. Lopiano, 247 Conn. 356 (use of broad dictionary definition of "property")
- Foran v. Carangelo, 153 Conn. 356 (statutory wrongful-death cause of action is a continuance of decedent’s action)
- Floyd v. Fruit Industries, Inc., 144 Conn. 659 (rights of action survive to personal representative)
- In re Michaela Lee R., 253 Conn. 570 (plenary review of legal questions on appeal from probate)
- Andrews v. Gorby, 237 Conn. 12 (Superior Court sits as probate court on de novo probate appeals)