Connecticut son reportedly wants to evict 98-year-old mother

Comet · #1 (**permalink**) 02-17-2012, 10:03 PM

It is your mother's 98th birthday. Do you:

A) Take her out to a nice dinner?

B) Take her to a spa and give her a makeover?

C) Write her an original poem telling her how much you lover her and means to you?

D) Evict her from the home she has lived in for 59 years.

Nice birthday present.

Quote:

A Connecticut mother reportedly received an unusual gift for her 98th birthday from her eldest son -- eviction papers.

Mary Kantorowski, who has lived in the same Southport, Conn., home since 1953, is now facing eviction from her yellow, Cape Cod-style home valued at $333,410, the Connecticut Post reports. Her son Peter Kantorowski, 71, a retired taxidermist, said he's doing it for her own good.

"She would be better off living with people her own age," he told the newspaper.

According to Probate Court records, Mary Kantorowski and her husband, John, agreed to transfer the house to a trust administered by Peter Kantorowski on the condition that Mary would live there until her death, and upon her death, the house would go to Peter and his younger brother, Jack, the newspaper reports.

In July 2005, however, Peter Kantorowski quitclaimed the house from that trust to another he and his wife control, giving him ownership of the house. Six years later, in Dec. 13, 2011, his mother's 98th birthday, Peter Kantorowski had his mother served with eviction papers.

"This is just a despicable situation," said Richard Bortolot Jr., a Stratford lawyer appointed by Fairfield Probate Judge Daniel Caruso to represent Mary Kantorowski. "Mary has been living here happily paying all the expenses for the house and now her son, Peter, comes along and is telling her, 'Get the hell out,' so he can sell it."

A trial on Peter Kantorowski's efforts to evict his mother is scheduled for March 2 in Superior Court in Bridgeport, the newspaper reports.

"My husband worked hard, difficult jobs to buy this house," Mary Kantorowski told the Connecticut Post. "He built the garage and did a lot of work on the house and he told me never to leave it."

Connecticut Son Reportedly Wants To Evict 98-year-old Mother | Fox News

dabateman · #2 (**permalink**) 02-17-2012, 10:12 PM

Him moving the house from one trust to the other may indeed be a violation of his duty as trustee of the first trust.

Setting that aside, and assuming the best case scenario, something I doubt is actually occurring, it might be one of the few legal options the son would have to get his mother into a home if she were having medical issues such as cognitive issues or physical ability to care for herself. In many states getting into programs for care are very difficult especially if the need for care is immediate. Sometimes, the risk of homelessness is one of the few criteria that get emergency certification for care.

Again, I don't think that's THIS case, but it might be... And terribly sad either direction.

AzMike · #3 (**permalink**) 02-18-2012, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dabateman

Him moving the house from one trust to the other may indeed be a violation of his duty as trustee of the first trust.

Setting that aside, and assuming the best case scenario, something I doubt is actually occurring, it might be one of the few legal options the son would have to get his mother into a home if she were having medical issues such as cognitive issues or physical ability to care for herself. In many states getting into programs for care are very difficult especially if the need for care is immediate. Sometimes, the risk of homelessness is one of the few criteria that get emergency certification for care.

Again, I don't think that's THIS case, but it might be... And terribly sad either direction.

Wouldn't this come down to contract law? The contract was he could get the house after she lived in it until her death. I'm not sure of the details but simply transferring ownership especially without her consent shouldn't negate that contract.

dabateman · #4 (**permalink**) 02-18-2012, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AzMike

Wouldn't this come down to contract law? The contract was he could get the house after she lived in it until her death. I'm not sure of the details but simply transferring ownership especially without her consent shouldn't negate that contract.

Well it's not quite that simple. The intent of the will was till her death, but that's not really creating a contract, it created a trust. When the son was made the trustee, he was the one who got to make the decisions and could have sold the house or whatever to provide for her best care.

MrLiberty · #5 (**permalink**) 02-18-2012, 11:47 AM

I hate it when people use the word greedy when referring to the rich, but in this case I think "greedy bastard" is appropriate.

AzMike · #6 (**permalink**) 02-19-2012, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dabateman

Well it's not quite that simple. The intent of the will was till her death, but that's not really creating a contract, it created a trust. When the son was made the trustee, he was the one who got to make the decisions and could have sold the house or whatever to provide for her best care.

That seems like a breech to me. He was only made executor under one condition that he has failed to meet (as far as we know).

This is pretty much why my kid will only get the money after me and the wife are dead. Putting your life in anothers hands is never good. Even if they are supposedly after your best interest.

dabateman · #7 (**permalink**) 02-19-2012, 03:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AzMike

That seems like a breech to me. He was only made executor under one condition that he has failed to meet (as far as we know).

Well, when you put something into a trust, you're trusting someone else to make the decisions for you either while you are alive or after you die. And those decisions may or may not line up with what you wanted to do. That doesn't mean that the trustee did a bad thing.

Now THIS case is different because he made decisions to benefit himself, and not the beneficiary of the trust (his mother). That is a breech of fiduciary duty, not a breech of contract (because the will doesn't really create a contract, it's a guide but not binding on the trustee).

As long as he was acting in the best interests of his mother, the wish for her to remain in the home is just a wish. He wouldn't have been violating his duty as a trustee. But it seems that is not the case here.

Quote:

This is pretty much why my kid will only get the money after me and the wife are dead. Putting your life in anothers hands is never good. Even if they are supposedly after your best interest.

Well I wouldn't write off trusts so quickly. There are many many advantages to trusts, especially as you get older. But if you have the money to be creating a trust, you have the money to hire a professional trustee (an actual money manager or whatever) and don't have to worry about the personal interests of the children. And, in many cases, having the kids as a trustee isn't a bad thing because it makes execution of the will easier in many cases. You just have to be able to trust your kids to do the right thing. If you can't trust that is the case, then you can't have a trust.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following User Says Thank You to dabateman For This Useful Post:
Coyote