Derblom v. Archdiocese of Hartford
| Decision Date | 06 February 2019 |
| Docket Number | NNHCV186080403S |
| Court | Connecticut Superior Court |
| Parties | Maria J. DERBLOM, Executrix of the Estate of Fred H. Rettich et al. v. ARCHDIOCESE OF HARTFORD aka The Hartford Roman Catholic Diocesan Corporation |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
File Date: February 5, 2019
This action involves the disposition of a substantial testamentary bequest to a parochial school, Our Lady of Mercy School (OLM), which is now closed. The twenty-three named plaintiffs may be divided into three categories: (1) Maria J. Derblom Executrix of the Estate of Fred H. Rettich (estate), whose decedent, Fred H. Rettich (decedent), made the subject bequest; (2) OLM students; and (3) the parents of OLM students.
According to the plaintiffs, on April 26, 2012, Derblom’s decedent, Fred H. Rettich, executed a Last Will & Testament (will), a copy of which is appended to their complaint. In Article Sixth of the will, the decedent disposed of residue of his estate, as follows: "All the rest, residue, and remainder of my property of every kind and description, real personal and mixed, wherever situated (all of which is hereinafter referred to as "Residue"), remaining after the payment of estate, inheritance, succession, transfer and death taxes or duties, in accordance with Article VII hereof (but excluding any property over which I may have a power of appointment at my death), I give and bequeath, in memory of Fred H. & Rosa Rettich, to Our Lady of Mercy School, 149 Neck Road, Madison, Connecticut, or its successor, for its general uses and purposes." Further according to the plaintiffs, in or about 2004, some years prior to the execution of the will, OLM became an Archdiocesan school.
The plaintiffs allege that the decedent died on September 27, 2013. The original amount left to OLM under the will was $ 4, 745, 110.86.
The plaintiffs further allege that over four years later, on January 25, 2018, the defendant, Archdiocese of Hartford a/k/a The Hartford Roman Catholic Diocesan Corporation, [1] announced that OLM would be closed and a new school would be formed in Branford, Connecticut, called the East Shoreline Catholic Academy (ESCA).
The plaintiffs allege that on February 18, 2018, the plaintiff, Our Lady of Mercy School of Madison, Inc. (OLMSMI) "was formed by certain concerned parents of students attending OLM to serve as a successor school with the intention of keeping the current mission and vision of OLM intact and fulfilling the wishes of Mr. Rettich of keeping a Catholic school in the Town of Madison." Based on the foregoing and other allegations, the plaintiffs bring claims seeking the imposition of a constructive trust (Counts One, Three, Five and Six), [2] in breach of fiduciary duty (Counts Two and Four), and for a declaratory judgment (Count Seven).
On July 16, 2018, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss (Docket Entry No. 102), on the grounds that the plaintiffs "are all without standing to bring an action to enforce the terms of a completed charitable gift to a school." As a result, the defendant claims that the court has no subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claims. The plaintiffs filed an objection and opposition brief on September 14, 2018 (Docket Entry No. 105), to which the defendant replied on September 28, 2018 (Docket Entry No. 107). The plaintiffs filed a supplemental brief on October 19, 2018 (Docket Entry No. 110) and the matter was argued on October 22, 2018, on which date the motion and objection were submitted to the court for adjudication.
In connection with the defendant’s motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs’ opposition thereto, the parties submitted affidavits and other supporting documentation. According to the affidavits submitted by the defendant, OLM "was a jointly-sponsored mission of St. George’s parish in Guilford and St. Margaret’s parish in Madison." Aff. of. Rev. J. Shanley (Shanley Aff.), ¶ 5; accord Aff. of Rev. D. McLearen (McLearen Aff.), ¶ 5; Affidavit of C. Panzo (Panzo Aff.), ¶ 6. Its mission was to provide elementary and middle school students with an education "that was academically sound, morally responsible, and religiously based in the Roman Catholic faith." Id., ¶ 10. Although located in Madison, Connecticut, OLM attracted students from many surrounding towns. Id., ¶ 4.
The defendant’s submissions reflect that, in keeping with the provisions of the will, on July 8, 2015, the estate wrote a check to OLM in the amount of $ 4, 745, 110.86. According to the undisputed affidavits submitted by the defendants, the foregoing check "was deposited in an account established by St. George’s parish and St. Margaret’s parish in the name of OLM School." Shanley Aff., ¶ 8; McLearen Aff., ¶ 6.
Despite drawing students from surrounding towns, enrollment at OLM declined precipitously from 2013 to 2018, from 228 to 140, a decrease of 39%. Id., ¶¶ 4, 5. OLM was also facing other challenges. OLM was located on property that was leased to OLM and in 2016, OLM was informed that the lease would not be extended beyond the 2017-2018 academic year. McLearen Aff., ¶ 7. Although OLM attempted to purchase the property or obtain a long-term lease, these efforts were unsuccessful. Id., ¶¶ 8, 9. As a result, in January 2018, St. Margaret’s parish and St. George’s parish decided to consolidate OLM with St. Mary’s School in Branford (another Roman Catholic elementary and middle school) to form a new school, namely, ESCA, at the end of the 2017-2018 school year. Id., ¶ 10. St. Margaret, St. George, and St. John Bosco (the parish that previously sponsored and operated St. Mary School in Branford) jointly sponsor and operate ESCA. Id., ¶ 11. In addition, Cheryl Panzo, who served as OLM’s principal for two years, continued to serve as principal of ESCA when it opened in the fall of 2018, and many of the faculty members of OLM continued their service as faculty members at ESCA. Panzo Aff., ¶ 8. All of the students from OLM and St. Mary’s School have been invited to enroll at ESCA and will be given preference with respect to admission. Id., ¶ 9.
Further according to the defendant, OLMSMI "has no affiliation with OLM[ ], St. Margaret, St. George, or the Archdiocese of Hartford." Shanley Aff., ¶ 9; accord McLearen Aff., ¶ 14 (). On April 23, 2018, the Archbishop of Hartford wrote a letter to the First Selectman of the Town of Madison, wherein he noted that ESCA Aff. of Rev. R. Lerner (Lerner Aff.), ¶ 4. According to the Archbishop, OLMSMI may not bear the title "Catholic school" without the consent of competent ecclesiastical authority.
While the plaintiffs do not contest most of the facts asserted by the defendant, they dispute the claim that ESCA is the successor to OLM. Thus, the plaintiffs contend that OLMSMI founded Our Lady of Mercy Preparatory Academy "to serve as the successor school" for OLM; Aff. of A. Knowles, ¶ 3; and the plaintiffs aver facts in purported support of the conclusion that OLMSMI is the successor to OLM as contemplated by the will. Id., ¶¶ 4-8.
"The construction of a will presents a question of law to be determined in light of facts which are found by the trial court or are undisputed or indisputable ..." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Canaan National Bank v. Peters, 217 Conn. 330, 335, 586 A.2d 562 (1991). In order to resolve the jurisdictional issues raised by the defendant, the court must determine as a threshold matter whether under the will, the decedent’s residual estate constituted an unrestricted gift to OLM or its successor, or gave rise to a charitable trust benefitting OLM or its successor. This requires the court to construe Article Sixth of the will.
Under Connecticut law, a gift is defined as "the transfer of property without consideration." (Citation omitted internal quotation marks omitted.) Kriedel v. Krampitz, 137 Conn. 532, 534, 79 A.2d 181 (1951). In making a gift a donor "must part with control of the property which is the subject of the gift with an intent that title shall pass immediately and irrevocably to the donee." (Citations omitted.) Id. Thus, a gift is characterized by the relinquishment of control by the donor together with an irrevocable transfer.
Given the foregoing, it is not surprising that "[there] is no such thing as a resulting trust[3] with respect to a charity ... Where the donor has effectually passed out of himself all interest in the fund devoted to a charity, neither he nor those claiming under him have any standing in a court of equity as to its disposition and control." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Carl J Herzog Foundation, Inc. v. University of Bridgeport, 243 Conn. 1, 8, 699 A.2d 995 (1997). Thus, "[an] outright devisee or donation to a ... charitable institution, expressly or impliedly to be used for its general purposes, is charitable but does not create a trust ..." (Emphasis supplied.) Restatement (Third) of Trusts § 28, comm. a. (2003); see also Susan N. Gary, The Problems With Donor Intent: Interpretation, Enforcement, And Doing The Right Thing, 85 Chi.-KentL.Rev. 977, 998 (2010) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial