To speak with an experienced probate law attorney, please contact the experienced attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. at (203) 221-3100 or at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

In the absence of a pre-hearing notice, a probate court decree that appointed a conservator of the person violated Connecticut General Statutes §45a-649. In May 2014, Skyview Center, a nursing home in Wallingford, accepted Jennifer Berry as a patient.

Berry owned a single asset, an individual retirement account valued at $3,487, and she was unwilling to liquidate the account and to spend it down, as required to meet Title XIX eligibility requirements. Skyview petitioned the Wallingford probate court to appoint a conservator of her estate. In the petition, Skyview alleged that Berry was unable to care for herself, as a result of her age and medical condition, and that she lacked sufficient income or assets to pay for her care. The probate court heard testimony that Berry was unable to make medical decisions for herself or to make arrangements for a place to live, in the event of discharge from Skyview. Dr. Richard Kull claimed that Berry suffered from a cognitive disorder and that she made illogical financial decisions that were dangerous to her safety. In response to the petition, Probate Judge Philip Wright appointed a conservator of the estate. Probate Judge Wright also, sua sponte, appointed a conservator of the person. (The conservator of the person resigned within two months and apparently did not take any action in that capacity.) The conservator of the estate promptly took steps to qualify Berry for Title XIX benefits.

The probate court overruled Berry's requests for a continuance and objection and granted the petition to liquidate the individual retirement account. Title XIX benefits were obtained that enabled Berry to remain at the nursing home. Berry appealed to the Connecticut Superior Court and argued that she lacked advance warning that a conservator of the person might be appointed and that the appointment violated her due-process rights. "In the absence of the required pre-hearing notice," wrote the Superior Court, "the decree appointing a conservator of Berry's person, though obviously well-intentioned, was not made in compliance with the procedural requirements of General Statutes §45a-649." The court vacated that part of the decree. The court upheld the probate court's decision to appoint a conservator of the estate. The decision complied with requirements in C.G.S. §45a-650(c).Probate Judge Philip Wright, wrote the court, "exhibited civility, compassion, and patience." The court affirmed the decisions of the probate court, except the decision to appoint a conservator of the person.

If you have any questions or would like to speak to a probate law attorney about a will, trust, or estate matter, please contact the experienced attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. at (203) 221-3100 or at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

For continual access to the legal world, follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn. We offer the latest updates on caselaw and legal news. In addition, informational videos are available for your convenience on our Youtube channel. 

Source: J. Ecker, Probate Court, Sua Sponte, Appointed Conservator of Person, 42 Conn. Law Trib. 17, (April 25, 2016) at 19