Partch Brief to Appellate Court re. Foreclosure

8/13/2019 Partch Brief to Appellate Court re. Foreclosure

1/39

APPELLATE COURT

OF THE

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

__________________

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORDAT HARTFORD

__________________

A.C. 36151

CITIMORTGAGE, INC.

v.

DOROTHY S. PARTCH, ET AL.

__________________

BRIEFOF THE PROPOSED INTERVENING

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

__________________

PROPOSED INTERVENINGDEFENDANT-APPELLANT

MARJORIE PARTCH SELF-REPRESENTED

CO DAVID VITA DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL JUSTICE

UNITARIAN CHURCH IN !ESTPORT1" LYONS PLAINS ROAD!ESTPORT, CT "6##"


2/39

$"3.%1$.35$#MAP&MARJORIEPARTCH.COM

ii
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


3/39

'In our civilized society, what is more sacred than ones home,'

'and what is more emotionally damaging than being evicted'

'from ones home based on intentionally false allegations'

''for the financial gain of the fraudulent actor, i.e., the Defendant.(

~ Richard H. Raphael, s!.

Marjorie Partchv. Wilton Meadows, "#$ %&'()'*+)-/'0 1)+(2(

____________________________________________(In which 3roposed Intervening Defendant'4ppellantis suing the nursing home responsible for the

"raudulently 3rocured Involuntary %onservatorshipof her mother, the Defendant Dorothy 0. 3artch 15-2

which act not only defrauded the unwitting Defendantin the present case of her fundamental Human Rights


4/39

and 3roperty, but additionally defrauded 4ppellantof her own proper 4uthority, 0tanding, and Rights

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF ISSUES

In its 0eptember , )+(, Denial of 3roposed Intervening Defendants 7uly (8, )+(,

9otion to #e 9ade a 3arty in the present "oreclosure proceeding against her mother,

Defendant Dorothy 0. 3artch, the $rial %ourt narrowly restricted its consideration of

various appropriate criteria to the sole !uestion of outright $itle (per se)to the under'

lying 3roperty. Did the $rial %ourt err in disregarding the following points:6

1. $he two tests for Inclusion under %onnecticut ;eneral 0tatute < /)'(+)6

a2 a mere claim to an interest1which 4ppellant demonstrated2= and

b2 the ability to contribute information and > or evidence that is ?neces'sary for a complete determination@ of the issues 1which 4ppellantalso demonstrated2.

). $he %onnecticut 3ractice #ooA < '(5 also provides, in relevant part6?BiCf a person not a party has an interest OR title which the udgment will affect,the udicial authority, on its motion, shall direct that person to be made a party,@emphasis added.

. 4ppellants previously established valid ?0tanding@ as an ?4ggrieved 3arty@ tobring 4ppeals of 3robate Decrees under %;0 < -/a'(5* 1eEercised in )+((2.

-. 4ppellants eligibility to transfer the $itle to the 3roperty to her own name underthe ?%aregivers Eception@ to the "ederal 9edicaid ;uidelines for the 3roperty$ransfer FooA'#acA 3eriod.

/. 4ppellants points regarding her Defrauded 4uthority, 0tanding, and Rightsvested in her by her mothers Durable 3ower of 4ttorney, concerning6

a2 the actual title to the underlying 3roperty= and

ii


5/39

b2 her mothers and her own right to possess and occupy the 3roperty.

*. $he 7udicial Review of said "raud in Marjorie Partchv. Wilton Meadows,validating 4ppellants ?claim to a redressable interest in the residence.@

8. Guestions of ongoing "raud in the present case concerning various proceduralmatters= misrepresentations of fact= and most importantly6

5. $he very serious !uestion of the actual value of the underlying 3roperty .

. %onnecticut ;eneral 0tatute


6/39

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF ISSUES..................................................................... ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................. iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.............................................................................................. vi

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS........................................................................................... (

A. H)*+/ D0)24............................................................................................... (

B. O P2 I740*04................................................................................................ )

II. SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS ...............................................................................

III. ARGUMENT................................................................................................................ 8

A. S4)408074 9 I20............................................................................................ 8

(. Jecessary vs. JIndispensable 3arties ............................................................. (+

B. S4)408074 9 40 C)0:

T0 T*) C92*4; E**9* 9 L)


7/39

1d2 4ppellants Rightful 4uthorityrongfully 0uperseded ................................................................................. (8

%;0 < -/a')-6

%ollateral 4ttacA of "raudulently3rocured 3robate Decrees6 .......................................................................... (8

?$he 3robate %ourts %an either$ry $itles to 3roperty orDetermine Guestions of stoppel@................................................................. (5

3art )6$he 0econd $est for InclusionKnder %;0 < /)'(+)6 ?Information@...................................................................... (5

1a2 9ortgage %onveyance to 3laintiff ................................................................. (5

1b2 3laintiffs 9isleading "ederal Foss9itigation 3rograms 4ffidavit......................................................................... (

1c2 4ctual &alue of the 3ropertyvs. ?"lop@ 3rice .............................................................................................. )+

?"lop,@ Defined............................................................................................... )(

E. F2*40* A*=28074 9* I7297

C970*77= P94074) F*)2+ )7+ 'U70)7 H)7+(........................................ )(

(. ewly Discovered > Relevant vidence6%ollusive )+(( 0uit #etween ilton 9eadowsand "irst %ourt'4ppointed %onservator ........................................................... )(

1a2 0imultaneous )+(( 0hort 0ale ?"lop@4greement, Dealings #etween%onservator and 3laintiff'4ppellee .......................................................... )(

). $rial %ourts "ailure to Recognize0ignificance of Nature of"raudto 4ppellants ?0tanding@...................................................................................))

. Lngoing "raud of "ormer %onservator ........................................................... )

-. "ailure to #ring 0uit .......................................................................................... )

/. 7oint Dealings .................................................................................................. )-

v


8/39

1c2 9utual "ailures to ReportFoan 9odification 4pplication .................................................................. )/

*. %K$34 &iolations to #e Investigated .............................................................. )/

IV. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................... )*

A. S097+ S4)7+)*+ 9 R0v0


9/39

Willow v. rencom 1o. "0$ %&'/'+(-*++'02)+++ %onn. 0up. 5)5 BKnpublishedC .................................................................. )/,)*

Wilton Meadows v. 'oroth . Partch(#onser*ator+ Matthew ". #aputo),%onn. 0up., "#$ %&'(('/+)/)'0 1)+((2 ....................................................... )(

STATUTES

%onnecticut ;eneral 0tatute < -/a')- .................................................................... 5,(),((5,)-

%onnecticut ;eneral 0tatute < -/a'(5* .................................................................. *,5,()

(,)-

%onnecticut ;eneral 0tatute < /)'(+) ................................................................... -,((,(-4nd (5

%onnecticut ;eneral 0tatute < /)'(+8 .................................................................... ((,()

%onnecticut ;eneral 0tatute < -)+'((+a ................................................................ )/

%onnecticut ;eneral 0tatute < -)+'((+b 1a2 ........................................................... )/

"ederal Knfair $rade 3ractices 4ct B(/ K0% < -/C .................................................. )/

"ederal 9edicaid ;uidelines -) K.0.%.4. < (*p1c21)21421iv2=K.3.9. < +) 4.(.e. .......................................................................................... /,5,()

(,16,)

RULES

%onnecticut 3ractice #ooA < '(5 ........................................................................... (+,((,()and (/

"ederal Rule (1a2 ................................................................................................... ()

"ederal Rule )-1a2 ................................................................................................... ()

MISCELLANEOUS

%aron M 9ilne, #onnecticut oreclosures,

vii


10/39

&ol. ), < ')6( "raud, at p. / 1/ thed.2 ........................................................... )(

viii


11/39

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

$he present "oreclosure action was commenced on 9arch )*, )+(, by 3laintiff'4ppellee

%itimortgage, Inc., against Defendants Dorothy 0. 3artch 1an 5-'year'old stroAe patient

and Involuntarily %onserved 3erson2 and the 0tate of %onnecticut Department of 0ocial

0ervices, with a %omplaint and 0ummons filed in the 0uperior %ourt, in the 7udicial District

of 0tamford > orwalA, at 0tamford B4ppendiE 3art I, page )+C.

3laintiff'4ppellees present action seeAs the "oreclosure of a certain mortgage

1?the 9ortgage@2 encumbering the property Anown as )+ Devils ;arden Road in orwalA,

%onnecticut 1?the 3roperty@2, as provided by Defendant Dorothy 0. 3artch to 3laintiffs

alleged predecessor in interest, (st4tlantic 9ortgage %ompany, on December ), )++/, to

secure repayment of a corresponding promissory note in the original principal amount of

N(/,+++ 1against a property then accurately valued at approEimately N-/+,+++2.

A. H)*+/ D0)24

4s outlined in her )+() "ederal Foan 9odification 4pplication on file with 3laintiff'4ppellee,

following her massive stroAe in 9arch )+(+, and since her contested, "raudulently

3rocured Involuntary %onservatorship in 7uly )+(+, approEimately N-++,+++ in Defendant

Dorothy 0. 3artchs assets 1other than her home2 have been li!uidated, !ualifying her for

9edicaid in )+((. 4t that time, the retired high school nglish teachers income 1a 0tate

3ension and 0ocial 0ecurity benefits2 was diverted from paying the 1otherwise

unnecessary2 mortgage in !uestion.

4t the same time, all the legal authorities she had conferred upon her daughter,

9arorie 3artch 1the 3roposed Intervening Defendant2 to represent and protect her wishes

and Rights 1Durable 3ower of 4ttorney, Health %are Representative, 4ttorney'in'"act, 3re'

1


12/39

Designated %onservator2 B4ppendiE 3art I, DocAet ntry O((/, 9otion to #e 9ade a 3arty

Defendant, 4pp.(, -+= ?Ehibit ,@ 4pp.(, /C, were ignored and fraudulently superseded,

without Due 3rocess BO()), ?Ehibit ,@ 4pp.(, (-C. #oth Defendants oint banA accounts

1to which 4ppellant also made deposits over the years2 were seized without warning or

hearing, preventing 4ppellants retention of a sAilled 3robate litigator for several months,

and creating a nearly impassible conundrum in the recourse available to 4ppellant, given

the now circular, paradoEical, and proverbial ?Guestion of 0tanding@ BO()), 9otion to

Reargue 9otion to #e 9ade a 3arty Defendant, pp. )', ?Ehibit ,@ 4pp.(, ((-= (-C.

In point of fact, 4ppellant made regular deposits of her own monies to the oint

checAing account from which she personally wrote the monthly 9ortgage payment checAs.

It is through no fault of their own that Defendant and 3roposed Defendant Dorothy

and 9arorie 3artch have not been permitted to live out their days in their own home, with

full responsibility for any attendant liabilities, including any mortgage against the 3roperty.

$hrough 4ppellants efforts, Defendant Dorothy 0. 3artch has been fully approved

1medically and financially, now that she is destitute2 for 0tate'funded home care for

approEimately (5 months, through the 9edicaid program Anown as ?$he 9oney "ollows

the 3erson@ 19"32 B4pp.(, -/C.

B. O P2 I740*04

4ppellant 9arorie 3artch has endeavored with 0tate Fegislators to strengthen and protect

the authority of a Durable 3ower of 4ttorney instrument such that it cannot be so easily

overturned without Due 3rocess before a fully !ualified 7udge in a %ourt of !uity. 0he is

continuing to use her mothers %ase'in'3oint in this effort to protect the %ivil Rights of our

most vulnerable population P our Disabled and 0enior %itizens. Knder current practices,

2


13/39

virtually de facto?"iduciaries@ are automatically empowered to seize assets for their own

personal self'enrichment and protection, often leaving their victims and their families

penniless to defend themselves through the very mechanisms bypassed in the first place.

$his ?Involuntary Redistribution of 4ssets@ also precipitously shifts the 1much higher2

eEpense of the conse!uently minimal institutional care of the ?%onserved 3erson@ to the

taEpayer, an abuse of the "ederal and 0tate 9edicaid programs about which the ational

4ssociation to 0top ;uardian 4buse lobbies %ongress every year.

II. SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS

Ln 7uly (8, )+(, the 3roposed Intervening Defendant, 4ppellant 9arorie 3artch, the

daughter of Defendant Dorothy 0. 3artch, filed a 9otion to #e 9ade a 3arty Defendant in

the present "oreclosure proceeding BO((/, 4pp.(, -+C. $his 9ortgage is against her own

permanent beloved family home of more than -+ years, where she cared full'time for her

stroAe'patient mother for more than siE years, without any hint of negative incident, prior

to her mothers )+(+ Involuntary %onservatorship, "raudulently 3rocured by the nursing

home 1?ilton 9eadows@2 to which the daughter had brought her mother for short'term

stroAe rehabilitation P the subect of various concurrent litigations, as follows, and directly

causal to the present proceeding.

Ln 7uly )*, )+(, 3laintiff'4ppellee filed its Lbection to 4ppellants 9otion to #e

9ade a 3arty Defendant BO((8, 4pp.(, 85C,with the main argument that 4ppellant Does

ot 3ossess $itle to the 3roperty, substantiated by 3laintiff'4ppellees ?Ehibit 4,@ a )+((

Decree to Guiet $itle from the orwalA'ilton 3robate %ourt B4pp.(, 5)C.

3


14/39

Ln 7uly ), )+(, Hon. Qevin $ierney Denied BO((/.5*C 4ppellants 9otion to #e

9ade a 3arty Defendant, for the stated reason that she Does ot 3ossess $itle to the

3roperty B4pp.(, 58C.

Knaware of this Ruling by the $rial %ourt, on 4ugust ), )+(, 4ppellant filed a

3roposed Lbection BO((C to 3laintiffs 9otion for 7udgment BO(+5C and 9isleading "ederal

Foss 9itigation 3rograms 4ffidavit BO(+-, 4pp.(, )C= a otice of "iling of 3roposed

Interrogatories BO()+C= and a 3roposed Lbection BO()(C to 3laintiff'4ppellees 9otion for

Etension of $ime BO((*C. 4ppellant was advised by the $rial %ourt %lerAs Lffice that she

would be able to reclaim these items in the event that she was made a 3arty Defendant.

hen 4ppellant learned of the $rial %ourts Denial of her 9otion, she resolved to

Reargue, and to utilize these items as eEhibits BbelowC, incorporating them as arguments for

the second $est for Inclusion under %onnecticut ;eneral 0tatute < /)'(+)6 i.e.,having

uni!ue information and evidence to contribute that is ?necessary for the %ourt to maAe a

complete determination@ of the issues.

4t the same time that she learned of the $rial %ourts Denial of her 9otion, 4ppellant

became aware of a favorable 4ugust (, )+(, #ridgeport 0uperior %ourt Decision BbelowC

to uphold her five'count $ort %laim against the nursing home responsible for her mothers

"raudulently 3rocured %onservatorship, which not only defrauded Defendant Dorothy 0.

3artch of her fundamental %ivil Rights P a separate but not unrelated matter P but also

defrauded 4ppellant of her 4uthority and ?0tanding@ to return Defendant Dorothy 0. 3artch

to their shared home, to direct her health care, and to protect the 3roperty for both

Defendants possession and use 1according to the 0enior 3artchs wishes2, as well as

4ppellants "iduciary Responsibility to maintain or satisfy the 9ortgage in !uestion. 4gain6

4


15/39

9rs. 3artchs 0tate 3ension and 0ocial 0ecurity benefits were and are currently diverted

due to her 1otherwise unnecessary2 )+(( enrollment in 9edicaid= this steady income could

guarantee the 9ortgage. 4nother property could have been sold to pay off the entire

amount of the 9ortgage.

4ppellant was additionally defrauded of her proper authority, entitlement, and even her

moral obligation and "iduciary Duty, under her mothers Durable 3ower of 4ttorney, to transfer

title to the 3roperty to her own name, as follows BO((/, 4pp.(, /6 3aragraphs ?142,@ p. /=

?132,@ p. /-, and most specifically6 ?1G2,@ p. /-C, as she was furthermore eligible to do under the

"ederal 9edicaid ;uidelines for 3roperty $ransfers B#rief 3ages (/ and (*, belowC.

It is reasonable, if somewhat unusual, to assert that 4ppellant was even defrauded

of her potential liabilities regarding the 3roperty. Her claims to it, and its value, could

conceivably be attached in any potential 7udgments against her.

Ln 4ugust (, )+(, 4ppellant filed a timely 9otion to Reargue BO()), 4pp.(, ((-C

the $rial %ourts 7uly ), )+(, Denial BO((/.5*C of her 9otion to #e 9ade a 3arty

Defendant BO((/C. 0he presented the 4ugust (, )+( #ridgeport 0uperior %ourt Decision

Bsee #rief 3age (-, belowC in its entirety as her ?Ehibit #@ B4pp.(, (+C. 0he also

incorporated as eEhibits her previous "ilings of 3roposed Interrogatories and 3roposed

Lbections BO((, O()+, O()(= 4pp(. pp. 55, (++, (+*C P as reasons to -e ncluded in the

"oreclosure proceeding, given the significance of the evidence to be provided by

4ppellants participation.

Ln 0eptember , )+(, the $rial %ourt granted 4ppellants 9otion for Reargument,

and her Lral 4rgument was heard.

5


16/39

4ppellant was permitted at that time to present additional new evidence P

discovered on 4ugust ), )+( P of the nursing homes Deliberate "raud, as well as the

%ollusion of her mothers first %ourt'4ppointed %onservator, in a suit brought by the nursing

home in 7une )+(( against Defendant Dorothy 0. 3artch, claiming the suddenly

contractually binding authority it had otherwise denied6 authority properly held by 4ppellant

long before the time of her mothers admission to the facility, and Anown to them long

before the facilitys denial of it in its "raudulent 4pplication for Involuntary %onservatorship

B4pp.(, (/5= 1Lral2 ?Ehibit 9,@ 4pp.(, (8= 4ffidavit 1O(++.82, (8/ 13aragraph /2 and pp.

(85'(55= $r., (8')-C.

$he significance of this new evidence of 4ppellants Defrauded 4uthority P and

therefore her Defrauded ?0tanding@ and ?Interest@ in the present "oreclosure matter P

seemed to elude the $rial %ourt entirely.

0imilarly, although Hon. $ierney was aware of the case, and even brought it up

himself, he did not seem to appreciate the relevant parallel of 4ppellants 0tanding to

4ppeal an earlier 3robate Decree to 0ell the 3roperty, as an ?4ggrieved 3arty@ under

%;0 < -/a'(5*6 as 4ppellant had done in )+(( 1DocAet o. "0$'%&'(('*+(+)8'02

B$r., )= -+C, and would do again. B$his case is no longer available to 4ppellant, having

been withdrawn in )+((, due to the withdrawal of the prospective buyer of the 3roperty.C

4t the conclusion of the 0eptember , )+(, hearing, Hon. $ierney pronounced his

Denial of 4ppellants underlying 9otion to #e 9ade a 3arty Defendant BO()).5*, 4pp.(, -,

$r., -+C, again for the same reason6 3roposed Intervening Defendant Does ot 3ossess

$itle to the 3roperty.

6


17/39

Ln 0eptember +, )+(, 4ppellant 9arorie 3artch filed her timely otice of 4ppeal

to this 4ppellate %ourt of the 0tate of %onnecticut, in order to protect her colorable #laim

to an nterestin the underlying 3roperty 1and the e!uity currently hidden therein2= as well

as her ability to contribute information necessary for the proper administration of 7ustice=

and thirdly, her mothers ability to return to the family home BO()8, O()5, 4pp.(, /C.

Ln Lctober (+, )+(, 4ppellant completed the "iling of this 4ppeal, and included

a 3reliminary 0tatement of Issues B4pp.(, (*C.

4ppellant re!uests that the entire Record of 3roceedings in the $rial %ourt be

included herein, including the %itations of Faw and Lpinion in related 0uperior %ourt

Decisions to which she has referred concerning her 0tanding as an 4ggrieved 3arty in

these matters.

III. ARGUMENT

A. S4)408074 9 I20

3roposed Intervening Defendant'4ppellant 9arorie 3artch presents the following issues

for this interlocutory appeal of the 0eptember , )+(, 0uperior %ourt Decision to Deny

her 1Reargument of her2 9otion to #e 9ade a 3arty Defendant BO()).5*, 4pp.(, -C in the

above'captioned "oreclosure matter, in which her mother, Dorothy 0. 3artch, is a

Defendant6

Did the $rial %ourt give sufficient consideration to the facts, new evidence, legal

arguments, and 0tate and "ederal 0tatutes !ualifying 3roposed Intervening Defendant

to be cited in to this "oreclosure action concerning her own beloved permanent home of

more than -+ years, where she cared for her stroAe'patient mother for more than siE

7


18/39

years B4pp.(, /+C:

"ederal 9edicaid Faw BbelowC stipulates 4ppellants first right to ownership of their

shared home after two years of home care. hy did the $rial %ourt ignore this instructive

measure and relevant guideline 13aragraph - in 4ppellants original 7uly (8, )+(, 9otion

to #e 9ade a 3arty Defendant BO((/, 4pp.(, -+C2 and Deny 4ppellants #laim to an nterest

in this "oreclosure proceeding: $his fully relevant criterion was also amplified in

4ppellants 9otion to Reargue B4pp.(, ((5C, and 9emorandum of Faw B4pp.(, ()-C.

hy did the $rial %ourt also ignore 4ppellants points regarding her Defrauded

4uthority, 0tanding, and Rights concerning6 1(2 the title to the underlying 3roperty= and

1)2 her mothers and her own right to possess and occupy the 3roperty, as is currently

under 7udicial Review in Marjorie Partchv. Wilton Meadows, "#$ %&'()'*+)-/'0:

13aragraphs /'5 in 4ppellants original 9otion BO((/, 4pp.(, -+C= and throughout her

written and oral Rearguments, see 4ugust (, )+(, 9otion BO()), 4pp.(, ((-C and

the 0eptember , )+(, $ranscript.2

4ppellants continued Eclusion would render a "inal $ermination of her ability to

protect her #laims to an nterestin her permanent home of more than -+ years. 0he would

also be denied her claimto the substantial e!uity in the 3roperty, which is currently being

fraudulently withheld from consideration. 4s the sole heir of Defendant Dorothy 0. 3artch

Bsee Fast ill M $estament, 4pp.(, (*8C, 4ppellant also has a legitimate interestin the

actual value of the state, if nothing else.

It is perpleEing that the $rial %ourt even referred to B$r., ), -+C the 3robate 4ppeal

brought by 4ppellant in )+((, concerning a proposed ?short sale@ of the 3roperty 1DocAet

o. "0$ %&'(('*+(+)8'02. 0he was clearly eEercising her 0tanding as an 4ggrieved

8


19/39

3arty under %;0 < -/a'(5* and %;0 < -/a')- 1regarding "raud2, which she would do

again. How did the $rial %ourt fail to recognize that 4ppellants 0tanding to bring 3robate

4ppeals esta-lishedher ongoing interestin the 3roperty bacA in )+((: 4nd that full titleto

the 3roperty is not a prere!uisite to her Inclusion:

4ppellant seeAs a reversal of the $rial %ourts 1>>(2 Decision B4pp.(, -C and a

reconsideration of her ?direct and immediate interestthat will be affected by the udgment,@

as this 4ppellate %ourt did in the case of $osadov. Brid&eport $oman #atholic 'iocesan

#orp.,*+ %onn. 4pp. (-, (-*, 8/5 4.)d (* 1)+++2.

In that case B4pp.)., (/C the seven priests seeAing to be included in a proceeding

against another individual priest prevailed on appeal due to their right to protect their own

interests,in that case their privacy and that of their clients. $he $rial %ourt erred in its

udgment that the ?non'party@ priests were not directly affected by subpoenas for their own

personal records, and the 4ppellate %ourt rightfully reversed the $rial %ourts Decision, and

upheld the rights of the ?non'parties.@

4ppellant hereby incorporates by reference all of the applicable Rules, and 0tate

and "ederal 0tatutes, as well as their successful argumentation in favor of the Inclusion of

the ?non'party@ priests, into this brief.

In the present case, the 4ppellant has shown, and will demonstrate again, her own

analogous individual Rights to protect, ancillary to her mothers, of course, but meaningful

nevertheless BO()), 4pp.(, ((-C P and also at eopardy and redressable in the present

case. Lne such claim would be her interest in the value of state as a whole. $his claim

never has been her primary motivation= but given her current inability to represent her

9


20/39

mothers Rights directly, 4ppellant must advocate for her own in order to protect her

mothers as well.

1. >N00)*?; v. >I7+/07)0; P)*40

4ppellant realizes that she does not possess outright title to the 3roperty. 0he also

realizes that she is not named on the 9ortgage. 4s such, she concedes that she may not

!ualify as what the %ourts would classify 1after much historic and evolutionary Jsemantic

cavilling over the nomenclature, as an JIndispensable 3arty to the "oreclosure proceeding

per se,as Defendant Dorothy 0. 3artch indisputably does, e.&.,given her clear title to the

3roperty, and being named on the 9ortgage in !uestion, according to the provisions of

the %onnecticut 3ractice #ooA < '(5.

However, 4ppellant does contend that according to the 0upreme %ourt Ruling

in turmanv. ocha,(( %onn. (, *'8, -* 4.)d /)8, /+ 1(52, she is at least a

Jecessary 3arty. $here is clearly a reason for the distinction that has been drawn

between the two terms over the years, and even if 4ppellant is not as JIndispensable

as her mother is to the present case, e.&.,that is not a prere!uisite for her Inclusion.

4ppellant contends her status to be, at a minimum, in the second class of

permissible Intervenors by Right, at the very least, given her %laim to an Interest in the

3roperty, and also given the information, evidence and Discovery that she can contribute

toward6

?leaving the controversy in such condition that its final termination may bewholly BinCconsistent with e!uity and good conscience.@

10


21/39

In turmanv. ocha,the 0upreme %ourt purportedly distinguished between

Jecessary and JIndispensable 3arties as follows 1internal !uotations and citations

omitted2. #oth should be admitted as Intervenors by Right, as 4ppellant asserts6

?3arties have been characterized as indispensable when they not only have aninterest in the controversy, but an interest of such a nature that the final decreecannot be made without either affecting that interest, or leaving the controversy insuch condition that its final termination may be wholly inconsistent with e!uity andgood conscience. ecessary parties, however, have been described as personshaving an interest in the controversy, and who ought to be made parties, in orderthat the court may act on that rule which re!uires it to decide on, and finally deter'mine the entire controversy, and do complete ustice, by adusting all the rightsinvolved in it.@

B. S4)408074 9 40 C)0: T0 T*) C92*4; E**9* 9 L) or )-1a2=

d2 the applicability of 3# < '(5 to 4ppellants 0tanding=

e2 the relevance of %;0 < -/a'(5* to 4ppellants 0tanding=

f2 the "ederal 9edicaid Faw regarding 4dult %hildren %aregivers BbelowC=

g2 the relevance of her mothers Defrauded Durable 3ower of 4ttorney=

h2 4ppellants Defrauded 4uthority and 0tanding=

i2 %;0 < -/a')- regarding that "raud=

2 the Fimited 7urisdiction of the 3robate %ourt concerning !uestions of title=

A2 her uni!ue Anowledge concerning the factual history of the 9ortgage= and

l2 !uestions of ongoing "raud, especially concerning the actual value of the

3roperty.

C. T0 S4)7+)*+ 9 R0v0


23/39

$ranscriptC 4ppellant seeAs a 3lenary Review by the 4ppellate %ourt of the Ruling of Faw

by the $rial %ourt= i.e.,a'eNo*o Review of the applicable 0tate and "ederal Faws, and

re!uests Lral 4rgument.

4gain6 $his appeal is properly brought before this %ourt because 4ppellants

continued Eclusion would effectively $erminate her Rights to protect her own #laims to an

nterestin the 3roperty, and the substantial e!uity established in the 3roperty that is

currently being disregarded and hidden= and her Eclusion would also prevent her mothers

long'belated return to their much'beloved shared family home of many years.

$he 3robate %ourts valuation of the 3roperty at N))/,+++ BO((/, 4pp.(, -C is

roughly e!uivalent to the %ity of orwalAs valuation of the highly desirable (> acre of land

alone, which abuts a forested valley containing protected wetlands, and which lies immedi'

ately outside the Rowayton $own Fine. $his suspicious figure essentially discounts the

handsome and well built five'bedroom (( %olonial structure, with a modern eat'in

Aitchen, and two decAs and a screened'in porch overlooAing the surrounding woodlands P

easily doubling the overall value of the 3roperty BO((/, 4pp.(, -8C, despite its neglect

B4pp.(, (+5'((C 1and notwithstanding the claim of N(/,+++S for carpentry services billed to

the state2 since the Involuntary %onservatorship of the Defendant.

D. A//0)74; S4)7+7= U7+0* S4)40 )7+ F0+0*) L) orwalA at 0tamford,

13


24/39

DocAet o. %&'(('*++8'0 10eptember ), )+((26 B4pp.(, *C= as well as the )+(

arguments, points of law and Decision of Honorable 9ary 0ommer BbelowC B4pp.(, (+C.

In addition, after caring for her mother in their shared home for more than siE years,

according to "ederal 9edicaid Faw BbelowC, 4ppellant has a clear, definite and colorable

#/"M 0% "N N01$10in the 3roperty= as well as uni!ue bacAground Anowledge to

contribute, especially in light of all the related litigations involving still'emerging evidence of

"raud leading up to and possibly including the present "oreclosure proceeding6

CGS 5$-1"$:

?Kpon motion made by any party or nonparty to a civil action 1 may bemade a party by the court if that person has or claims an interestin the con'troversy, or any part thereof, adverse to the plaintiff= OR $ shall be madea party by the court if that person is necessar for a complete determinationor settlement of any !uestion involved therein shall be made a defendantin the controversy,@ emphasis added.

!4 40 C)v0)4:? provided no person who is immune from liability shall be made a defendantin the controversy.@

B24 40 S2/*080 C92*4 E+4:?In e!uity proceedings, all persons interested should be made parties,@ 8 %. */.

P)*4 1. T0 F*4 T04 9* I7297 U7+0* CGS 5$-1"$: 'I740*04(

4ppellant refers to her colorable #/"M 0% "N N01$10in the underlying property.

4ppellants interestis demonstrated by the following four points, beginning with the

affirmation of a recent 0uperior %ourt Decision favorable to 3roposed Defendants five'

count $ort %laim regarding her mothers "raudulently 3rocured %onservatorship 1causally

related to the present case26

14


25/39

) B*+=0/9*4 S2/0*9* C92*4 D097

$his 15>(>(2 0uperior %ourt Decision is included in its entirety as ?Ehibit #@ to

4ppellants 15>(>(2 9otion to Reargue BO()), 4pp.(, (+C6 Marjorie Partchv.

Wilton Meadows Healthcare #orp.,0uperior %ourt, 7udicial District of "airfield at

#ridgeport, DocAet o. %&'()'*+)-/ 14ugust (, )+(2. In upholding 4ppellants

Defrauded 0tanding in this five'count $ort %laim, the Honorable 9ary 0ommer at

#ridgeport 0uperior %ourt concludes in her (5'page 9emorandum of Decision

Denying Defendants 9otion to Dismiss 19otion O(+*.++26

?"inally, ust because the plaintiff B9arorie 3artchC has not alleged that she was afee holder or lease holder of her mothers personal residence does not re!uire thecourt to conclude that the plaintiff does not possess a redressable interest in theresidence.

?$hus, for the purposes of the present motion, the plaintiff can claim a legallyredressable inury in the form of eviction from the residence@ Bpp. (*'(8C, emphasisadded.

A//0)74; D0*)2+0+ A249*4?,S4)7+7=, )7+ R=4 U7+0* 40 POA

4ppellants ? Jdirect and substantial interestin the subect matter of the B"oreclosureC

litigation@ 1under %onnecticut 3ractice #ooA < '(52 is further demonstrated by

4ppellants Defrauded"uthorit, vested in her by her mothers Durable 3ower of

4ttorney, to transfer title to the 3roperty to her own name, as follows BO((/, 4pp.(,

p. /, 3aragraphs ?142,@ p. /= ?132,@ p. /-, and most emphatically6 ?1G2,@ p. /-C6

' NO! ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS,which are intended to constitute a;R4F 3LR L" 4$$LRT pursuant to %onnecticut 0tatutory 0hort "orm3ower of 4ttorney 4ct6

?$hat I, DLRL$HT 0. 34R$%H, of )+ Devils ;arden Road

?do hereby appoint 94R7LRI 34R$%H, of )+ Devils ;arden Road

?9y attorney'in'fact $L 4%$6

15


26/39

'F*4: In my name place and stead in any way which I could do, if I werepersonally present, with respect to the following matters as each of them isdefined in the %onnecticut 0tatutory 0hort "orm 3ower of 4ttorney 4ct tothe eEtent that I may be permitted by law to act through an agent6

?142 real estate transactions= including the power to transfer and convey real property including property located at )+ Devils ;arden Road

'F92*4: ithout in any way limiting the generality of the foregoing powers, thisDKR4#F ;R4F 3LR L" 4$$LRT also includes the power to6

?132 maAe gifts in any amount, outright or in trust 1including without limitation,creating, funding, revoAing or amending a trust or adding property to aneEisting or subse!uently created trust2, of my property to any person,includin& m attorne2in2fact3

?1G2 create, eEercise or release a power of appointment pursuant to %onnecticut;eneral 0tatutes 0ection ()'-/b et se4.,including the power to create,eEercise or release a power of appointment in fa*or of himself or herself, hisor her creditors, his or her estate or the creditors of his or her estate. ot'withstanding the previous sentence, m attorne2in2fact can create, eEerciseor release a power of appointment for his or her -enefit onl as necessar forthe attorne2in2fact!s health, education, maintenance or support 51mphasis added.2

$his document again demonstrates, along with the Fast ill and $estament of

Defendant Dorothy 0. 3artch B4pp.(, (*8C, the intention of the Defendant to

compensate and protect her daughter for her commitment to her mothers home

care for the last years of her life.

4s well as the authoritto transfer the underlying 3roperty to her own name,

4ppellant had the proper and legal eli&i-ilitto do so, under the F0+0*) M0+)+

R20 concerning the'C)*0=v0*; E0/497( 49 40 P*9/0*4? T*)70* L99@-

B)@ P0*9+:

F0+0*) M0+)+ L)< ) )7 A//*9/*)40 S4)7+)*+ 9 R0v0


27/39

4 son or daughter who lived in the home for at least two years priorto the date of institutionalization and provided care that permittedthe individual to remain at home to avoid institutionalization@6

$ U.S.C.A. 13%6/$Av U.P.M. 3"$% A.1.0.

Knder "ederal Faw, after two years of caring for her mother at home, 4ppellant was

legally and rightfully entitled to full ownership of the 3roperty. 4ppellant cared for

her mother for more than siE years BDoctors ote6 4pp.(, /+C. How can she not be

a 3arty to this proceeding: How can she not have a#laim to an nterest6

+ A//0)74; R=42 A249*4? !*97=2? S2/0*0+0+

$he orwalA'ilton 3robate %ourt Decree to Guiet $itle B3laintiffs ?Ehibit 4,@

4pp.(, 5C arose from the "raudulently 3rocured %onservatorship that Defendant

Dorothy 0. 3artch was wrongfully placed under by ilton 9eadows in )+(+, and

which is the subect of various pending litigations. 4ccordingly, this )+(( 3robate

Decree, presented in 3laintiff'4ppellees 18>)*>(2 BO((8, 4pp.(, 85C Lbection to

4ppellants 9otion to #e 9ade a 3arty Defendant BO((/, 4pp.(, -+C, should not be

considered the ?final word@ on the !uestion of the rightful ownership of the 3roperty

in this matter, given the still'emerging evidence and unfolding prosecution of "raud

concerning 4ppellants bypassed and superseded 4uthority P as well as the Fimited

7urisdiction of the 3robate %ourt. $his assumption appears to be another error in

the $rial %ourts Decision ot to Include 3roposed Defendant P again ignoring

4ppellants previously established 0tanding to 4ppeal Decrees of 3robate= as well

as the natureof the "raud in !uestion, which invoAes the !uitable 3owers of the

0uperior and 4ppellate %ourts= as well as the propriety of a collateral attacA.

17


28/39

ith reference to "raud, concerning this particular case, please see the

thoughtful )+(( 0uperior %ourt Lpinion included as ?Ehibit ;@ B4pp.(, *C in

4ppellants original 9otion to #e 9ade a 3arty Defendant BO((/, 4pp(., -+C, wherein

the Honorable dward Qarazin upheld that under %;0 < -/a')-, 3robate %ourt

Decrees are subect to collateral attacA in the event of "raud B4pp.(, *= *5'8C.

3lease note in addition, the 0uperior %ourts discussion of the 3robate %ourts lacA

of urisdiction to settle disputed titles to property B4pp.(, 8)= 4pp.), ((C6

R0=)*+7= F*)2+2074? P*92*0+ P*9)40 D0*00: CGS 5)-$:

In Mallor!s "ppeal,*) %onn. )(5, )/ 4. (+ 1(5)2 B4pp.), ((C, the %ourt con'cluded that without the !uitable Guestion of "raud, the 0uperior %ourt is limitedto the urisdiction of the 3robate %ourt and cannot determine title to property6

? $he probate courts Jcan neither try titles to property nor determine !uestions ofestoppel, and the 0uperior %ourt, sitting for the trial of a case liAe this, taAes theplace of the probate court from which it came, and can do no more than could havebeen done by that court. 1Internal !uotation marAs omitted.2 Id., )). everthe'less, this case is also distinguished from Reynolds v. Lwen, supra, - %onn. 0up.(+8, and its progeny in that the plaintiff did not allege fraud, accident or mistaAeand, therefore, did not invoAe the e!uitable powers of the court. $he court did notsuggest that the superior court would be barred from eEercising its e!uitable powersto the eEtent that the plaintiff alleged that the probate decree was procured by fraud,accident or mistaAe. $o the contrary, the court stated that ?no order made by a courtof probate upon any matter within its urisdiction shall be attacAed collaterally e7ceptfor fraud.@ 1mphasis added= internal !uotation marAs omitted.2 Id., ))+')(.

P)*4 $. T0 S097+ T04 9* I7297 U7+0* CGS 5$-1"$: 'I79*8)497(

4s well as her above %laims to an nterestin the 3roperty, 4ppellant has established that

her participation in the present action is necessary for the upper %ourts to maAe a

?complete determination@ of the issues at hand, for at least three additional reasons, as

follows. hile perhaps not as technically JIndispensable as her mothers, e.&.,4ppellants

18


29/39

?presence is Jabsolutely re!uired 8i.e.,JecessaryC in order to assure a fair and e!uitable

trial, @ Birov. Hill,)(- %onn. (, /'8, /8+ 4.)d (5), (5-'5/ 1(+2.

) M9*4=)=0 C97v0?)70 49 P)74

If 4ppellant is permitted Discovery, as her mothers daughter, legal representative,

live'in caregiver, and > or advocate over the past decade, even more legitimate

!uestions will come to light, given her uni!ue Anowledge, documentation, evidence,

and 3roposed Interrogatories BO()+C regarding the ownership and transfer history

of the 9ortgage in !uestion. 0he has serious !uestions regarding the alleged )+()

conveyance to %itimortgage. $hese !uestions, given her Anowledge of the history

of the 9ortgage in !uestion, are reasons forher Inclusion, which the $rial %ourt

overlooAed. $he history as claimed by %itimortgage omits an intervening transfer,

from (st4tlantic 9ortgage to "lagstar #anA in )++*, and states that %itimortgage

ac!uired the 9ortgage, directly from (st4tlantic, in )+(). 4s 4ppellant has indicated

BO()), 4pp(., ((8= O()+, 4pp(., (++C, this is no more accurate than 3laintiffs false

claim that Defendant Dorothy 0. 3artch did not apply for a "ederal Hardship'#ased

Foan 9odification BbelowC= or than the purported ?fair marAet value@ of the 3roperty

Babove and belowC, which sale price would constitute a second "raud if permitted.

P)74; M0)+7= F0+0*) L9 M4=)497 P*9=*)8 A+)v4

"or another eEample, in her 3roposed Lbection BO((, 4pp.(, 55= O()), 4pp.(, ((8C

to 3laintiffs 9isleading 4ffidavit BO(+-, 4pp.(, )C, 4ppellant presents evidence of

Defendant Dorothy 0. 3artchs 4pplication for a ;overnment'0ponsored Hardship'

#ased Foan 9odification initiated in 4ugust )+(), in direct opposition to 3laintiff'

19


30/39

4ppellees false statements that she made no such 4pplication, and was

unresponsive to 3laintiff'4ppellees attempts to eEtend this opportunity. $hese

misrepresentations by 3laintiff'4ppellee could potentially rush the case toward

7udgment, without prior 9ediation, were it not for the Intervention of the 3roposed

Defendant'4ppellant. one of the 3robate %ourt'4ppointed %onservators who have

filed an 4ppearance on behalf of Defendant Dorothy 0. 3artch in this proceeding has

raised this Lbection. $his point alone, with the following, is reason enough for the

3roposed Defendants Inclusion.

A42) V)20 9 40 P*9/0*4?

4nd third6 4s 4ppellant alerted the $rial %ourt in 3aragraph of her original

8>(8>( 9otion BO((/, 4pp.(, -+C, the 3roperty has been grossly undervalued by

both the 3robate %ourt and the 3laintiff'4ppellee. ven with its currently deplorable

appearance,staged as it is to looA liAe a ?tear'down@ P and potentially poised for

what "oreclosure "raud eEperts term a ?"lop@ 1as opposed to a ?"lip@2 Bsee belowC P

professionally prepared 9arAet %omparisons are coming in at a significantly higher

price point. $his indicates substantial e!uity established in the 3roperty, currently

being disregarded.

P24 )7940*


31/39

is consistent with its 18+U2 taE assessment at N)+,+++ B4pp.(, --C. 4s noted in

4ppellants original 9otion to #e 9ade a 3arty Defendant BO((/, 4pp.(, -+C,

N-*5,+++ B4pp.(, -8C is more than double the current 3robate %ourt valuation of the

3roperty 1N))/,+++2 B4pp.(, -C. 4ll of these points regarding the 3ropertys actual

value and hidden e!uity were raised and eEhibited B?4,@ ?%@C in 4ppellants original

9otion to #e 9ade a 3arty= and repeated in her 9otion to Reargue BO()), 4pp.(,

((-C, and are legitimate reasons forher Inclusion.

R0) E4)40 F*)2+ D07497 9* ) 'F9/(

?Ksually associated with a short sale, an appraiser, and > or realestate agent intentionally undervalues real property to have the lenderapprove a short sale and waive any remaining debt. $he new buyer,often as part of a conspiracy with the borrower > seller, then re'sellsthe property for a higher amount immediately after the short sale, andsplits the proceeds with the borrower,@ Denis R. %aron and ;eoffrey Q.9ilne, #onnecticut oreclosures,&ol. ), < ')6( "raud, at p. /1/thed.2 B4pp.), ))C.

Lbviously, there are many possible variations on this theme.

E. F2*40* A*=28074 9* I7297C970*77= P94074) F*)2+ )7+ 'U70)7 H)7+(

1. C92v0 S24 )7+ S9*4 S)0 A=*008074

4t Lral Reargument to #e 9ade a 3arty Defendant on 0eptember , )+(, 4ppellant

presented recently discovered new evidence of the deliberately perpetrated "raud against

both 3artch Defendants B$r., (8')-C. $his evidence also demonstrates the culpability of the

3redecessor 3robate %ourt'4ppointed %onservator for Defendant Dorothy 0. 3artch, a real

estate attorney who nominally represented the Defendant in the following apparently

collusive suit. $his point is pivotal to the present issue of 4ppellants proper ?0tanding@6

21


32/39

) $he following !uestionable )+(( suit was brought simultaneously with the

!uestionable and duly appealed 3robate Decreed ?short sale@ agreement negoti'

ated with 3laintiff'4ppellees representatives, for a sale price of approEimately

/+U of the 3ropertys value.

Wilton Meadows v. 'oroth . Partch (#onser*ator+ Matthew ". #aputo), 0uperior%ourt, 7udicial District of "airfield at #ridgeport, DocAet o. %&'(('/+)/)'017une ), )+((2. ntry o. (++.8 B4pp.(, (8/C on this DocAet is an 4ffidavit byilton 9eadows that asserts a contractual responsibility to pay pursuant to thesignature of the 4ppellant as ?4ttorney'in'"act@ for Dorothy 0. 3artch= i.e.,4ppel'lants improperly superseded authority, which ilton 9eadows has persistentlydenied, and > or denied Anowledge about, in every other %ourt B4pp.(, (8*,3aragraph /, $r., (8')-C.

"or eEample, see the original 7uly 5, )+(+, 4pplication for Involuntary %onservator'ship, ?Ehibit "@ to 4ppellants initial 18>(8>(2 9otion to #e 9ade a 3arty DefendantBO((/, 4pp.(, *(C. $his 4pplication misrepresents that 4ppellants authority was?KnAnown@ and > or did not eEist. However, it was how 9rs. 3artch was admitted.

%ompare the )+(( Wilton Meadowsv. 'oroth . Partch4ffidavit, which includedas an eEhibit ilton 9eadows 4dmissions documents also endorsing 4ppellantsauthority, co'signed by 4ppellant and ilton 9eadows Director of 4dmissionson "pril 9:, 9;


33/39

4pril (*, )+( B4pp.(, +C.

It is not only the factof the "raud in !uestion, but its N"0=$11or ?content@2 that

constitutes its significance to 4ppellants Right to participate in the present proceeding. In

the words of her Lctober (+, )+(, 3reliminary 0tatement of Issues B4pp.(, (*C, 4ppellant

should be granted the opportunity and platform for 7ustice to seeA the answers to her

!uestions, i.e.,to participate in Discovery, because6 I" L$ "LR $H 1%RI9I4F,

%F400 D "FLT2 "R4KD L" IF$L 94DL0, $H 3RL3R$T LKFD

#FL; $L 433FF4$, KDR $H 4K$HLRI$T L" HR 9L$HR0 DKR4#F

3LR L" 4$$LRT 4D $H "DR4F 9DI%4ID %4R;I&R0 V%3$IL.

4ppellant articulated these points at length, in $ranscript pages ))'+.

3. O7=97= F*)2+

4t Lral 4rgument on 0eptember , )+(, 4ppellant further demonstrated 9r. %aputos

participation in the ongoing "raud against both 3artch Defendants, presenting a 9otion that

9r. %aputo submitted to the 3robate %ourt on 9arch )), )+(, a mere four days before the

filing of the present "oreclosure action. $he $rial %ourt did indulge its thorough description

and discussion, despite 4ppellees Lbection that this 9arch )) 9otion was not included in

4ppellants original 18>(8>(2 9otion to #e 9ade a 3arty Defendant B$r., )-C.

. F)2*0 49 B*7= S24

Ln 7uly (8, )+(, 4ppellant did not anticipate that 3laintiff'4ppellee would raise the

!uestion of the 3robate Decree to Guiet $itle in 3laintiff'4ppellees Lbection BO((8C to her

Inclusion= and she had not yet discovered the above'mentioned )+(( 4ffidavit by ilton

9eadows B4pp.(, (8/C. 4t that time, in 7uly, it was not reasonable to anticipate the

23


34/39

relevance of this 9arch )), )+(, misrepresentation by 9r. %aputo that he had ?no

Anowledge@ of the facts in !uestion P i.e., the duly conferred authority of 4ppellant, and

ilton 9eadows Anowledge and deliberate misrepresentation of same.

#ut if 9r. %aputo represented Defendant Dorothy 0. 3artch in )+((, then he had

Anowledge of the eEistence of this 4ffidavit and the 4pril )+(+ signature pages evincing

the proper authority of 4ppellant B$r., )5, 4pp.(, (85'(55C. He therefore Anows that

Defendant Dorothy 0. 3artch has an even more viable claim against ilton 9eadows than

her daughter, whose rightful authority he improperly bypassed and superseded. $his new

evidence has recently been brought to the attention of the #ridgeport 0uperior %ourt, as

well as the orwalA 3robate %ourt, and 4ppellant has re'petitioned that %ourt to bring

suit against ilton 9eadows on behalf of Defendant Dorothy 0. 3artch B$r., )5C. $o date,

the 3robate %ourt is blocAing that suit from being brought before a %ourt of !uity, with a

fully !ualified 7udge and impartial 7ury to maAe the appropriate "indings of "act and Faw

regarding the Rights of the ?%onserved 3erson,@ and thereby preventing the process of her

Involuntary %onservatorship from coming to the light of day.

$his suit could produce a lot of revenue for 9rs. 3artchs long'withheld restorative

stroAe therapy, in her own home.

5. J974 D0)7=

It seemed that 4ppellants entire point driving her !uestions regarding the actions of

the first %onservator for Defendant Dorothy 0. 3artch in his oint dealings with 3laintiff'

4ppellees representatives was completely lost on the $rial %ourt6

24


35/39

) "or eEample, their shared intention in )+(( to eEecute their ?short sale@ at a

price, again, far below marAet value 1N)-/,+++2. 14gainst which 4ppellant eEercised

her established 0tanding to 4ppeal Decrees of 3robate under %;0 < -/a'(5* and

%;0 < -/a')-.2

$his !uestionable short sale agreement was negotiated simultaneously with

the )+(( collusive suit between ilton 9eadows and 9r. %aputo 1ostensibly

representing Defendant Dorothy 0. 3artch2.

4nother red flag is 9r. %aputos Anowledge of Defendants 4pplication for a

Foan 9odification in )+() B4pp.(, *C. 4ppellant drew the potential comparison to

the "iduciary aspects of Willowv. rencom1)+++2 %onn. 0up. 5)5 B4pp.), )+-C in

her Lral 4rgument re!uesting to participate in Discovery B$r., )5= )'-C. $he

relevance of this parallel and important 1albeit unpublished2 suit, which only

succeeded through Discovery and appeals, also seemed to escape the $rial

%ourts notice.

hile neither %itimortgage, Inc. nor (st4tlantic 9ortgage %ompany 1nor

"lagstar #anA2 ever owed a "iduciary Dutyper seto Defendant Dorothy 0. 3artch,

as her various %ourt'4ppointed %onservator1s2 did and do, the companies that were

engaged in business with the elderly and disabled Defendant did and do have an

ethical duty to their long'time consumer, her family, her heirs and assigns, the

community at large, and the business community, particularly the troubled mortgage

and banAing industries 1currently being bailed out by the taEpayer2 P as well as their

duty to the 0tate P to adhere to principles of good faith, and to the "ederal Knfair

25


36/39

$rade 3ractices 4ct B(/ K0% < -/C, as well as the %onnecticut Knfair $rade

3ractices 4ct 1%K$342, %;0 < -)+'((+a et se4. 4s 4ppellant pointed out in her

9otion to Reargue BO()), 4pp.(, ((5C6 0ection -)+'((+b 1a2 states eEplicitly6

?o person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfairor deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.@

+ Tet another point is 9r. %aputos failure to pursue 0pecial 9ediation, when his

ward had completed 4pplications for both $he 9oney "ollows the 3erson 19"32

and a Hardship'#ased "ederal Foan 9odification, with his documented assistance.

6. CUTPA V9)497

In its thoroughly considered, (5'page Decision ot to Dismiss 8supra>, the #ridgeport

0uperior %ourt in Marjorie Partchv. Wilton Meadows upholds all five of 4ppellants %ounts

against ilton 9eadows, including 4ppellants %K$34 claim, under %;0 < -)+'((+a et

se4. Discovery for that claim is certain to eEpand the scope of its investigation.

$he tragic loss of the Defendants home would be the final and irreversible blow

in this battle to bring her mother home if 9arorie 3artch is not permitted to Intervene and

participate in this "oreclosure proceeding.

IV. CONCLUSION

#oth by 0tatute and by Rule, the admission of new parties into an action comes within both

the Fetter of the Faw, and the broad discretion of the %ourt. "actors to be considered

include whether the 3roposed Defendants participation will enable the %ourt to maAe a

more complete determination of the issues. hile this is a somewhat subective evalu'

ation, in the present case, 4ppellant has provided ample evidentiary grounds for concern

26


37/39

regarding the "iduciary Issues and ?Knclean Hands@ Doctrine as eEemplified in Willowv.

rencom1)+++2 B4pp.), )+-C6

A. S097+ S4)*+)*+ 9 R0v0


38/39

o amount of monetary damages awarded could ever compensate this profound

loss of the family home to which both Defendants are deeply attached.

4ny 9ortgage found to be valid in these proceedings could readily be reinstated with

payments guaranteed by Defendant Dorothy 0. 3artchs 0tate 3ension and 0ocial 0ecurity

benefits= as well as &eterans #enefits from 9rs. 3artchs deceased spouse= and

reasonably anticipated awards for damages.

$he 4ppellant respectfully prays that this 4ppellate %ourt of the 0tate of %onnecticut

will find that she should be made a 3arty Defendant in the present "oreclosure proceeding

P for reasons of !uity if not legal technicality, ineEpertly argued P in order to preserve her

familys homestead pending further ongoing litigations of the underlying issues.

Respectfully submitted,

3RL3L0D D"D4$'433FF4$ 94R7LRI 34R$%H

#T6 WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW 9arorie 3artch 0elf'Represented

c>o David &ita, Director of 0ocial 7ustice $he Knitarian %hurch in estport (+ Fyons 3lains Road estport, %$ +*55+ )+.()./)5 > )+.))8.8)+/, E (- mapXmaroriepartch.com

28
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


39/39

Date post:	04-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	marjorie-partch
View:	224 times
Download:	0 times

Partch Brief to Appellate Court re. Foreclosure

Documents