Chaterdon v. Wilson-Coker, No. Cv 01-0507957 S (Oct. 12, 2001)

Connecticut Superior Court

Chaterdon v. Wilson-Coker, No. Cv 01-0507957 S (Oct. 12, 2001)

30 Conn. L. Rptr. 529, 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 14091

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedOctober 12, 2001

DocketNo. CV 01-0507957 S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 30 Conn. L. Rptr. 529 (Chaterdon v. Wilson-Coker, No. Cv 01-0507957 S (Oct. 12, 2001)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chaterdon v. Wilson-Coker, No. Cv 01-0507957 S (Oct. 12, 2001), 30 Conn. L. Rptr. 529, 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 14091 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

Memorandum of Decision The court finds that the first sentence of Article II A. of the trust, which is the center of the present controversy, does not give the trustee authority to distribute principal to Elizabeth Connolly. Rather, this sentence literally authorizes the trustee only to hold the principal, without distributing it, for the grantor's wife upon the death of the grantor. Article II A. of the trust stands in contrast to Article 1(a) of the trust, which expressly authorizes the trustee to pay both income and principal to the grantor during his lifetime.

Accordingly, this case is governed by Ahern v. Thomas, 248 Conn. 708,733 A.2d 756 (1999). Because the hearing officer committed an error of law in not following Ahern, the appeal is sustained. Pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183 (j), the case is remanded to the defendant for further proceedings, to take place without further delay, to determine whether all other conditions of eligibility for Medicaid benefits are met and, if so, the precise date of eligibility.

It is so ordered.

Carl J. Schuman Judge, Superior Court

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

Memorandum of Decision The court finds that the first sentence of Article II A. of the trust, which is the center of the present controversy, does not give the trustee authority to distribute principal to Elizabeth Connolly. Rather, this sentence literally authorizes the trustee only to hold the principal, without distributing it, for the grantor's wife upon the death of the grantor. Article II A. of the trust stands in contrast to Article 1(a) of the trust, which expressly authorizes the trustee to pay both income and principal to the grantor during his lifetime.

Accordingly, this case is governed by Ahern v. Thomas, 248 Conn. 708,733 A.2d 756 (1999). Because the hearing officer committed an error of law in not following Ahern, the appeal is sustained. Pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183 (j), the case is remanded to the defendant for further proceedings, to take place without further delay, to determine whether all other conditions of eligibility for Medicaid benefits are met and, if so, the precise date of eligibility.

It is so ordered.

Carl J. Schuman Judge, Superior Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 Conn. L. Rptr. 529, 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 14091, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chaterdon-v-wilson-coker-no-cv-01-0507957-s-oct-12-2001-connsuperct-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack