At Oral Reargument to Be Made a Party Defendant (9/9/13), Appellant presentedrecently discovered
of the deliberately perpetrated Fraud against bothPartch Defendants. This newly discovered evidence also confirms the complicity of theformer Conservator for Defendant Dorothy S. Partch, a real estate attorney whonominally represented the Defendant in the following apparently collusive suit in 2011.This suit was brought by Wilton Meadows at the same time as a 2011 Probate Decreeto sell the Property under a “short sale” agreement also simultaneously negotiated withPlaintiff-Appellee; again, for a greatly reduced price. Appellant appealed that Decreeas a recognized Aggrieved Party, under C.G.S. § 45a-186, and would do so again:
Dorothy S. Partch (Conservator: Matthew A. Caputo)
, Superior Court, Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. CV 11-5029523-S (June 2,2011) (00 Conn. L. Rptr. 00). Entry No. 100.37 on this Docket is an Affidavit by WiltonMeadows asserting that Appellant’s signature was binding, as “Attorney-in-Fact” for Dorothy S. Partch;
Appellant’s improperly superseded authority, whichWilton Meadows has persistently denied, and/or denied knowledge about, in every other Court. Note Wilton Meadows’ Admissions documents also endorsing said authority, co-signed by Appellant and Wilton Meadows’ Director of Admissions
on April 25, 2010.
For example, compare Wilton Meadows’ (7/8/10) Application for Involuntary Conser-vatorship, “Exhibit F” to Appellant’s initial Motion (#115).
While the Honorable Kevin Tierney did laughingly acknowledge the absurdity of Wilton Meadows’ denial of Appellant’s authority [see 9/9/13 Transcript: “It’s all over theplace,” he exclaimed], he did not seem to fully appreciate the seriousness of the Fraud,or its impact; or its relevance to the present case; or to Appellant’s rightful position; or theresultant implications regarding further potential improprieties in the instant Foreclosureproceeding, initiated under the tenure of the Predecessor Conservator, Matthew A. Caputo(“Caputo”) – and for which Caputo filed an Appearance on April 16, 2013.
At oral argument (9/9/13), Appellant attempted to further demonstrate Caputo’sparticipation in the ongoing Fraud against both Partch Defendants, by presenting a(3/22/13) Motion that Caputo submitted to the Probate Court a mere four days before thepresent Foreclosure action. However, the trial court upheld Plaintiff-Appellee’s Objection.
These items of newly discovered and newly relevant evidence have since been, andwill be, filed as matters of Public Record in other related proceedings in other Courts. Theyare extremely relevant to the present case. On 9/25/13, Appellant also filed an Objection tothe Appointment of yet another (third) Conservator for her mother, while again requestingher own Appointment, which would absolutely assure her standing in the present case. Itseemed that Appellant’s underlying point driving her questions regarding the actions of theformer Conservator in his joint dealings with Plaintiff-Appellee was entirely lost on the trialcourt; or that she lacked the standing to raise her questions. Appellant’s comparisonin her oral argument on 9/9/13 to the potential fiduciary and “clean hands” issues in
2000 Ct. Sup. 828 [Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk atStamford, Docket No. CV-95-0146003-S (Jan. 19, 2000)] seemed to fall on deaf ears.