- 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