CAROLYNE Y. HYNES v. SHARON M. JONES
(SC 20009)
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Argued September 17, 2018—officially released April 16, 2019
Robinson, C. J., and Palmer, McDonald, D’Auria, Mullins, Kahn and Ecker, Js.
***********************************************
The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion.
All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
***********************************************
Syllabus
The plaintiff, who had received an award from the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund following the death of her husband during the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, appealed to the trial court from the Probate Court’s denial of her motion to dismiss guardianship proceedings relating to their minor child. The letter from the compensation fund’s special master authorizing that award indicated that the plaintiff had elected to receive certain money on behalf of the minor child as a representative payee. The letter further elaborated that, in that capacity, the plaintiff had an obligation to use the money in the minor child’s best interest, to invest it prudently, and to distribute it to the minor child once she reached the age of majority. Following receipt of the award, the Probate Court directed the plaintiff to place the money into a guardianship account. The plaintiff complied and subsequently filed an application to be appointed guardian of the minor child’s estate. The Probate Court granted that application but, thereafter, declined to allow the plaintiff to use the funds in the account to pay for certain of the minor child’s expenses, concluding that that the plaintiff had a common-law duty to use her own resources for the minor child’s support. The plaintiff then filed a motion to dismiss the guardianship proceedings, claiming a lack of jurisdiction, which the Probate Court denied. The plaintiff appealed from that decision to the trial court, which concluded that the Probate Court had jurisdiction to appoint a guardian because the plaintiff’s election to receive compensation fund money directly as a representative payee did not exempt that money from the statutory protections afforded to the property of minors. The trial court rendered judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s probate appeal, from which the plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court. That court concluded that the award was a substitute for a wrongful death claim and, therefore, constituted part of the husband’s estate. The Appellate Court reasoned that, because the husband died intestate while he was domiciled in Norwalk, the court of probate in that district had jurisdiction to appoint a guardian ad litem to protect the minor child’s interests in the husband’s estate. The court further concluded that the Probate Court had jurisdiction pursuant to the statute (
Procedural History
Appeal from the order of the Probate Court for the district of Norwalk-Wilton denying the plaintiff’s application to dismiss guardianship proceedings with respect to her minor child, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk, and tried to the court, Hon. David R. Tobin, judge trial referee; judgment dismissing the appeal, from which the plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court, Sheldon, Beach and Flynn, Js., which affirmed the trial court’s judgment, and the plaintiff, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. Reversed; judgment directed.
Opinion
ROBINSON, C. J. The dispositive issue in this certified appeal is whether the Probate Court has jurisdiction to approve or monitor use of a September 11th Victim Compensation Fund (fund) award that had been paid to a surviving spouse as a “representative payee” for the benefit of her minor child. The plaintiff, Carolyne Y. Hynes, appeals, upon our grant of her petition for certification,1 from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the judgment of the trial court dismissing her appeal from the decree of the Probate Court. Hynes v. Jones, 175 Conn. App. 80, 82–85, 167 A.3d 375 (2017). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the Probate Court lacks jurisdiction over a fund award paid to the plaintiff as a “representative payee” because that award is neither (1) the property of the estate of her late husband, the decedent Thomas Hynes, within the meaning of
The following factual and procedural history informs our review. The decedent was killed in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and died intestate. The plaintiff and the decedent resided in the city of Norwalk at the time of his death. On March 28, 2002, the plaintiff gave birth to their daughter, Olivia.5 On April 24, 2003, the plaintiff filed an application with the Probate Court seeking appointment as the administrator of the decedent’s estate. The Probate Court granted the application and appointed Attorney Brock T. Dubin as guardian ad litem for the minor child.
After her appointment as administrator of the decedent’s estate, the plaintiff filed a claim for compensation from the fund. By letter to the plaintiff, dated June 3, 2004, the fund’s special master, Kenneth R. Feinberg,6 authorized a total award of $2,425,321.70. Specifically, the plaintiff was awarded $1,153,381.58 as a “[b]eneficiary,” and the minor child was awarded $1,271,940.12 as a “[b]eneficiary.” The award letter stated that the plaintiff had elected to receive benefits directly on behalf of the minor child as a “ ‘representative payee.’ ” The letter subsequently identified the plaintiff as the “payee” a second time, and stated that she was to be paid $1,271,940.12 “on behalf of” the minor child. The letter then elaborated on the representative payee’s obligations as follows: “As you know, as a representative payee, you are obliged—like a trustee—to ensure that funds are used in the [minor’s] best interest. You assume full responsibility for ensuring that the [award] paid to you as representative payee [is] used for the [minor’s] current needs or, if not currently needed . . . saved for his or her future needs. This includes a duty to prudently invest funds, maintain separate accounts for each minor, and maintain complete records. In addition, upon reaching [eighteen] years of age (or age of majority as recognized by state law), the [minor is] entitled to receive the award paid to you as representative payee. Thus, at such time, you must distribute the award to the [minor] unless the [minor] otherwise willingly [consents].”
On July 31, 2008, the Probate Court appointed the defendant, Sharon M. Jones, as successor guardian ad litem for the minor child in the estate administration proceedings. Thereafter, the Probate Court insisted that the minor child’s share of the benefits from the fund be placed into a guardianship account. On June 9, 2010, in compliance with the Probate Court’s wishes, the plaintiff filed an application to be appointed guardian of the minor child’s estate. The Probate Court granted the application but thereafter refused to allow the plaintiff to utilize the funds held in the guardianship account to pay for certain expenses. The plaintiff argued that the expenses were principally for the benefit of the minor child, but the Probate Court, reasoning that the plaintiff had a common-law duty to support the minor child as long as she possessed the resources to do so, concluded that the minor child’s assets should not be used for such expenses.
The plaintiff did not appeal from that decree of the Probate Court. Instead, on
The plaintiff then appealed from the Probate Court decree to the trial court. Pursuant to
The plaintiff appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court agreed with the Probate Court that an award from the fund was a substitute for a wrongful death claim and consequently was part of the decedent’s estate. Hynes v. Jones, supra, 175 Conn. App. 92. The Appellate Court reasoned that, because the decedent died while domiciled in Norwalk, the court of probate in that district had jurisdiction to appoint a guardian ad litem to protect the minor child’s interests in the decedent’s estate. Id. The Appellate Court also concluded that the Probate Court had jurisdiction because the minor child became entitled to property within the meaning of
On appeal to this court, the plaintiff argues that an award from the fund, when paid directly to a surviving spouse as a “representative payee” in exchange for that spouse’s agreement to use the award to pay for the child’s current needs, is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Probate Court. The plaintiff claims that the fund award was paid to her as a representative payee for her minor child, not as a representative of her husband’s estate, and that the fund never intended that awards paid to representative payees would be subject to the jurisdiction of the various states’ probate courts. The plaintiff asserts that
We agree with the plaintiff that the Probate Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to appoint a guardian of the minor child’s estate. Specifically, we first conclude that a fund award paid to the plaintiff as a “representative payee” did not constitute a part of the decedent’s estate. We further conclude that the award does not constitute property to which the minor child is “entitled” under
Courts of probate “are statutory tribunals that have no common-law jurisdiction. . . . Accordingly, [these courts] can exercise only such powers as are conferred on them by statute. . . . They have jurisdiction only when the facts exist on which the legislature has conditioned the exercise of their power. . . . [A] court [that] exercises a limited and statutory jurisdiction is without jurisdiction to act unless it does so under the precise circumstances and in the manner particularly prescribed by the enabling legislation.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Connery v. Gieske, 323 Conn. 377, 388, 147 A.3d 94 (2016). The question in this case is whether any existing statute grants the Probate Court authority to exercise jurisdiction over the fund award paid to the plaintiff in her capacity as representative payee for her minor child. Thus, whether the Probate Court has jurisdiction over the fund award presents a question of statutory interpretation, which is an issue of law over which our review is plenary. See, e.g., In re Henrry P. B.-P., 327 Conn. 312, 324, 173 A.3d 928 (2017).
“When construing a statute, [o]ur fundamental objective is to ascertain and give effect to the apparent intent of the legislature. . . . In other words, we seek to determine, in a reasoned manner, the meaning of the statutory language as applied to the facts of [the] case, including the question of whether the language actually does apply. . . . In seeking to determine that meaning,
In order for the Probate Court to exercise jurisdiction over a fund award, there must be a legislative grant of authority for such jurisdiction. There are a number of
Alternatively,
Our analysis hinges on whether the fund award, paid to the plaintiff as a “representative payee” for the benefit of the minor child, was part of the decedent’s estate, or property of the decedent or the minor child, within the meaning of these statutes. In order to make such a determination, we consider the purpose of the fund.
Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress created the fund in connection with the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act (Stabilization Act), Pub. L. No. 107-42, 115 Stat. 230 (2001). The express purpose of the fund was “to provide compensation to any individual (or relatives of a deceased individual) who was physically injured or killed as a result of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes of September 11, 2001.” Stabilization Act § 403, 115 Stat. 237. A special master was appointed by the United States Attorney General to administer
These sources of federal law are unclear as to the legal nature of fund awards. The situation at issue in the present case is sui generis in our case law; a third party, here the United States government, has made an award directly to a parent as a representative payee for her minor child and imposed fiduciary obligations requiring the parent to use the award to provide for the child’s current needs.14 We must, therefore,
It is clear from the special master’s final report that the fund had two principal intentions when it developed a scheme for payment of awards to or on behalf of minors. The fund wanted to provide flexibility to custodians and protection to minors. 1 K. Feinberg et al., supra, p. 56. The fund contemplated a number of different options for payment, including guardianship, trusts, custodial accounts, representative payees, and periodic payments through structured settlements. Id., p. 60. As the special master explained, there were advantages and disadvantages with each approach. For example, in considering the guardianship approach, the special master observed that, although becoming a guardian is a relatively simple process in undisputed cases, “many states impose significant limitations on the ability of the guardian to access the minor’s funds. The fundamental premise in these states is that it is the guardian’s duty to protect the funds during the child’s minority, and, therefore, the award is to be used only after a parent’s obligation of support has been satisfied. In New York, for example, in order to utilize funds a parent must disclose his or her financial means and indicate why access to the funds is necessary. The court then decides whether to allow the expenditure.” (Footnote omitted.) Id. The fund ultimately decided to allow guardianship as one option, among several others, noting that it was the “most protective option,” but declined to require guardianship in all cases, concluding that such a restriction would “not promote the [p]rogram’s goal of providing funds to parents and custodians of minor children for purposes of the child’s current as well as future needs.” Id., 61. Thus, the fund made clear that it would not mandate the most protective option at the expense of flexibility in parents’ and custodians’ use of the funds to meet minor children’s current needs. “Many parents of minor beneficiaries, particularly those residing in New York, argued that requiring a parent to be appointed guardian of the property would be cumbersome and unnecessarily restrictive. These parents complained that they would be unable to provide adequately for their children’s needs if they were required to submit to the probate and surrogate’s courts requirements in their jurisdiction. They asked the [f]und to provide an alternative mechanism for payment to minors that would be less onerous.” Id., p. 60.
The fund provided such an alternative by allowing the option of appointing a parent as a representative payee. “Under this option, a parent would apply to the [f]und to serve as a representative payee. Upon appointment by the [f]und, the representative payee would hold the funds on behalf of the minor and would have the fiduciary responsibility to ensure that the award to the child was utilized for the child’s current needs, and, if not currently needed, saved for the child’s future needs.” Id., p. 61. This approach was at the opposite end of the spectrum from a guardianship; whereas the guardianship approach was perhaps the most protective option, the representative payee approach was arguably the least protective option. “The advantage of this option was its flexibility and ease of administration. The disadvantage was the lack of oversight and supervision of the representative payee by a third party.” Id.
After weighing the advantages and disadvantages of these approaches, and others,
The plaintiff elected to be paid as a representative payee on behalf of the minor child. The fund allowed for this option, envisioning that the use of the award would not be subject to oversight by state probate courts. The imposition of fiduciary obligations on the representative payee is best seen as an effort by the fund (1) to ensure that a representative payee, not otherwise subject to court supervision, agreed to be bound to use the award in the manner expressly required by the award letter, and (2) to provide access to a remedy in the event that the representative payee violated that agreement. The obligations imposed by the fund are not imposed by statute, but by the fund itself.16 Therefore, a minor child, an appointed guardian, or the special master himself could bring an action sounding in contract against the representative payee, alleging, for example, that the representative payee failed to perform in the manner required by the award letter, which performance was promised in exchange for direct payment of the award to the representative payee. Id., pp. 61–62. Thus, the legal nature of the award is a payment directly to the plaintiff that she is contractually bound to receive and use consistent with the conditions imposed by the fund.17
Because we conclude that the fund award was paid directly to the plaintiff in express contemplation of the absence of probate court supervision over her receipt and use of the award, and was not the property of the decedent or his estate, we further conclude that the Probate Court lacked jurisdiction over the award as part of its supervision of the administration of intestate estates under
Similarly, we conclude that
The salient question is whether the award constitutes property to which the minor child is entitled or property belonging to her within the meaning of
Mindful that “[a] court [that] exercises a limited and statutory jurisdiction is without jurisdiction to act unless it does so under the precise circumstances and in the manner particularly prescribed by the enabling legislation”; (internal quotation marks omitted) Connery v. Gieske, supra, 323 Conn. 388; we conclude that our state statutes did not grant the Probate Court jurisdiction to monitor the plaintiff’s use of the fund award or to prohibit the plaintiff from using that award in the absence of that court’s approval.
The judgment of the Appellate Court is reversed and the case is remanded to that court with direction to reverse the judgment of the trial court and to remand the case to that court with direction to render judgment sustaining the plaintiff’s appeal.
In this opinion the other justices concurred.