- 7 - As a result of the above legal analysis, the Connecticut Superior Court in Estate of Antone, denied a motion for summary judgment. Thereafter, the above cases were consolidated for trial and opinion on the legal issue as to whether attorneys-in-fact were authorized to make gifts under the Act and on the factual issue as to whether the attorney-in-fact violated his fiduciary duty to his principal by making the gifts. Wosczyna v. Estate of Antone, 1996 WL 434261 (Conn. Super. Ct. July 17, 1996). In its opinion, the Connecticut Superior Court did not decide the legal issue and simply held that the attorney-in-fact had acted in his own self- interest, had violated his fiduciary duty of loyalty to his principal, and that the gift was revocable. Id. at *4. Petitioner contends that since the broad language of the Act authorizes attorneys-in-fact to act as “alter egos” of their principals, decedent’s attorneys-in-fact herein were implicitly authorized under the Act to make gifts on decedent’s behalf, and therefore that the $144,400 value of decedent’s transferred property need not be included in decedent’s gross estate. Respondent contends that the Act and the POA neither explicitly nor implicitly authorize decedent’s attorneys-in-fact to make gifts on decedent’s behalf, and respondent contends that until decedent’s death the transfers of decedent’s property were revocable by decedent.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011