159 Conn.App. 730
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Joel Sylvain executed a detailed living trust in 1996 that left most assets to his three children and gave his wife Hilda significant rights; he executed a restatement/amendments in 2005 that (1) removed his daughter Sharon Kunz as a beneficiary and (2) replaced Hilda as a disability/death trustee with son Kenneth.
- Joel had progressive Parkinson’s disease and Lewy body dementia; by 2005 he had a diagnosis of mild to moderate dementia and exhibited "good days and bad days."
- On August 22, 2005 Joel met with his longstanding estate-planning attorney (Attorney Vinhateiro) for about an hour, signed the amended trust and related documents, which were notarized and witnessed by disinterested parties.
- Lay witnesses (the attorney, son Dale, and a nurse) testified Joel was lucid and understood his intent that day; plaintiff’s medical experts testified (by retrospective inference) Joel likely lacked capacity.
- Plaintiff sued to invalidate the 2005 amendments for lack of capacity and undue influence; the trial court found Joel had sufficient capacity on the signing date and that no fiduciary relationship existed that would shift the burden on undue influence. Judgment for defendants; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Joel had sufficient mental capacity to execute the 2005 trust amendments | Kunz: Joel’s dementia meant he lacked capacity to understand the nature and consequences of disinheriting her; plaintiff’s medical experts so opined | Defendants: Even if dementia diagnosed, Joel had "good days," understood his finances and intent on Aug 22, 2005; attorney saw no incapacity | Court affirmed: credible evidence showed Joel had requisite capacity on the signing date; findings not clearly erroneous |
| Proper capacity standard to apply (testamentary vs. contractual/higher standard) | Kunz: The amendments were complex/essentially dispositive and required application of a higher (contractual/business) capacity standard | Defendants: Under either the less demanding testamentary standard or the higher standard, evidence supports capacity | Court: It did not need to choose—found Joel met either standard and so capacity was sufficient |
| Whether burden shifted to defendants on undue influence (existence of fiduciary/confidential relationship) | Kunz: Dale and Kenneth held fiduciary roles (attorney-in-fact, successor agent, later trustee) and were close to Joel, so burden should shift to them to prove absence of undue influence | Defendants: Powers of attorney were not exercised in relation to the 2005 amendment; they were not present at signing; no evidence of coercion; no formal fiduciary relationship affecting the amendment | Court: No fiduciary relationship shown in connection with the amendment; burden remained with Kunz and she failed to prove undue influence |
Key Cases Cited
- Deroy v. Estate of Baron, 136 Conn. App. 123 (discusses standards for testamentary capacity versus capacity for business transactions)
- Brett Stone Painting & Maintenance, LLC v. New England Bank, 143 Conn. App. 671 (appellate deference to trial court factfinding; do not presume error)
- State v. Orsini, 155 Conn. 367 (permit lay testimony on obvious/simple medical matters)
- Sanzo’s Appeal from Probate, 133 Conn. App. 42 (lay witnesses may testify to mental condition of testatrix)
- McKeon v. Lennon, 155 Conn. App. 423 (trier of fact resolves credibility issues)
- Schaffer v. Schaffer, 187 Conn. 224 (the trier is final judge of witness credibility)
- Martinez v. Commissioner of Correction, 147 Conn. App. 307 (appellate review limited on credibility findings)
- Bucchi v. Gleason, 137 Conn. 25 (burden of proving undue influence rests with the party asserting it)
- Hills v. Hart, 88 Conn. 394 (parent-child relationship alone does not create presumption of undue influence)
- Cooper v. Cavallaro, 2 Conn. App. 622 (if confidential relationship proved, burden shifts to fiduciary to show fairness)
- Iacurci v. Sax, 313 Conn. 786 (mixed questions of fact and law review; subsidiary facts reviewed for clear error)
- Ahern v. Kappalumakkel, 97 Conn. App. 189 (definition/scope of fiduciary/confidential relationship in estate contexts)
- Hartford Courant Co. v. Freedom of Information Commission, 261 Conn. 86 (plenary review for legal standard issues)