APPELLATE COURT

OF THE

STATE OF CONNECTICUT
__________________ JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD AT HARTFORD __________________

A.C. 36151 CITIMORTGAGE, INC. v. DOROTHY S. PARTCH, ET AL.
__________________ BRIEF OF THE PROPOSED INTERVENING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT __________________

PROPOSED INTERVENING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT MARJORIE PARTCH SELF-REPRESENTED C O DAVID VITA DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL JUSTICE UNITARIAN CHURCH IN !ESTPORT 1" LYONS PLAINS ROAD !ESTPORT, CT "6##"

$"3.%1$.35$# MAP&MARJORIEPARTCH.COM

ii

'In our civilized society, what is more sacred than one’s home,' 'and what is more emotionally damaging than being evicted' 'from one’s home based on intentionally false allegations' ''for the financial gain of the fraudulent actor, i.e., the Defendant.(
~ Richard H. Raphael, s!.

Marjorie Partch v. Wilton Meadows, "#$ %&'()'*+),-./'0 1)+(.2(

____________________________________________ ( In which 3roposed Intervening Defendant'4ppellant is suing the nursing home responsible for the "raudulently 3rocured Involuntary %onservatorship of her mother, the Defendant Dorothy 0. 3artch 15-26 which act not only defrauded the unwitting Defendant in the present case of her fundamental Human Rights

and 3roperty, but additionally defrauded 4ppellant of her own proper 4uthority, 0tanding, and Rights.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF ISSUES

In its 0eptember ,, )+(., Denial of 3roposed Intervening Defendant’s 7uly (8, )+(., 9otion to #e 9ade a 3arty in the present "oreclosure proceeding against her mother, Defendant Dorothy 0. 3artch, the $rial %ourt narrowly restricted its consideration of various appropriate criteria to the sole !uestion of outright $itle (per se) to the under' lying 3roperty. Did the $rial %ourt err in disregarding the following points:6 1. $he two tests for Inclusion under %onnecticut ;eneral 0tatute < /)'(+)6 a2 a mere “claim to an interest” 1which 4ppellant demonstrated2= and b2 the ability to contribute information and > or evidence that is ?neces' sary for a complete determination@ of the issues 1which 4ppellant also demonstrated2. ). $he %onnecticut 3ractice #ooA < ,'(5 also provides, in relevant part6 ?BiCf a person not a party has an interest OR title which the Dudgment will affect, the Dudicial authority, on its motion, shall direct that person to be made a party,@ emphasis added. .. 4ppellant’s previously established valid ?0tanding@ as an ?4ggrieved 3arty@ to bring 4ppeals of 3robate Decrees under %;0 < -/a'(5* 1eEercised in )+((2. -. 4ppellant’s eligibility to transfer the $itle to the 3roperty to her own name under the ?%aregiver’s Eception@ to the "ederal 9edicaid ;uidelines for the 3roperty $ransfer FooA'#acA 3eriod. /. 4ppellant’s points regarding her Defrauded 4uthority, 0tanding, and Rights vested in her by her mother’s Durable 3ower of 4ttorney, concerning6 a2 the actual title to the underlying 3roperty= and

ii

b2 her mother’s and her own right to possess and occupy the 3roperty. *. $he 7udicial Review of said "raud in Marjorie Partch v. Wilton Meadows, validating 4ppellant’s ?claim to a redressable interest in the residence.@ 8. Guestions of ongoing "raud in the present case concerning various procedural matters= misrepresentations of fact= and most importantly6 5. $he very serious !uestion of the actual value of the underlying 3roperty . ,. %onnecticut ;eneral 0tatute <-/a')-6 3robate %ourt Decrees are subDect to collateral attacA in the event of "raud6 ?$he 3robate %ourts %an Heither $ry $itles to 3roperty Hor Determine Guestions of stoppel@ (+. 4ppellant’s continued Eclusion would render a "inal Decision against her ability to protect her colorable claims to her interest in the 3roperty, effectively $erminating her Rights. ((. 4s a result, 4ppellant would also be denied her claim, as sole heir, to the substantial e!uity established in the 3roperty, which is currently being fraudulently withheld from consideration. (). Ihile 4ppellant may not !ualify as an JIndispensable’ 3arty 1as in a current title'holder to the 3roperty2, she does still !ualify as a JHecessary’ 3arty, given her Interest in the 3roperty and uni!ue contributions to maAe toward an !uitable Ruling by the %ourts.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF ISSUES ..................................................................... ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .............................................................................................. vi I. STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................... ( A. H)*+,-./ D01)234 ............................................................................................... ( B. O1 P253.6 I740*0,4 ................................................................................................ ) II. SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS ............................................................................... . III. ARGUMENT................................................................................................................ 8 A. S4)408074 91 I,,20, ............................................................................................ 8 (. JHecessary’ vs. JIndispensable’ 3arties ............................................................. (+ B. S4)408074 91 4-0 C),0: T-0 T*.)3 C92*4;, E**9*, 91 L)< ......................................................................... (( C. T-0 S4)7+)*+ 91 R0v.0<: A De Novo R0v.0< 91 4-0 L)< ............................................................................ () D. A//033)74;, 'S4)7+.7=(: U7+0* S4)40 )7+ F0+0*)3 L)< ............................................................................. (. 3art (6 $he "irst $est for Inclusion Knder %;0 < /)'(+)6 ?Interest@............................................................................ (1a2 1b2 1c2 #ridgeport 0uperior %ourt Decision .............................................................. (4ppellant’s Defrauded 4uthority, 0tanding, and Rights ..................................................................................... (/ "ederal 9edicaid Faw as an 4ppropriate 0tandard of Review ................................................................... (*

iv

1d2

4ppellant’s Rightful 4uthority Irongfully 0uperseded ................................................................................. (8 %;0 < -/a')-6 %ollateral 4ttacA of "raudulently 3rocured 3robate Decrees6 .......................................................................... (8 ?$he 3robate %ourts %an Heither $ry $itles to 3roperty Hor Determine Guestions of stoppel@................................................................. (5

3art )6 $he 0econd $est for Inclusion Knder %;0 < /)'(+)6 ?Information@...................................................................... (5 1a2 1b2 1c2 9ortgage %onveyance to 3laintiff ................................................................. (5 3laintiff’s 9isleading "ederal Foss 9itigation 3rograms 4ffidavit......................................................................... (, 4ctual &alue of the 3roperty vs. ?"lop@ 3rice .............................................................................................. )+ ?"lop,@ Defined............................................................................................... )( E. F2*4-0* A*=28074, 19* I7632,.97 C9760*7.7= P94074.)3 F*)2+ )7+ 'U7630)7 H)7+,( ........................................ )( (. Hewly Discovered > Relevant vidence6 %ollusive )+(( 0uit #etween Iilton 9eadows and "irst %ourt'4ppointed %onservator ........................................................... )( 1a2 0imultaneous )+(( 0hort 0ale ?"lop@ 4greement, Dealings #etween %onservator and 3laintiff'4ppellee .......................................................... )(

). $rial %ourt’s "ailure to Recognize 0ignificance of Nature of "raud to 4ppellant’s ?0tanding@................................................................................... )) .. Lngoing "raud of "ormer %onservator ........................................................... ). -. "ailure to #ring 0uit .......................................................................................... ). /. 7oint Dealings .................................................................................................. )-

v

1c2

9utual "ailures to Report Foan 9odification 4pplication .................................................................. )/

*. %K$34 &iolations to #e Investigated .............................................................. )/ IV. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................... )* A. S0697+ S4)7+)*+ 91 R0v.0<: A52,0 91 D.,6*04.97 .......................................................................................... )8

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES Biro v. Hill, )(- %onn. (, /'8, /8+ 4.)d (5), (5-'5/ 1(,,+2 ..................................................................................... Mallor !s "ppeal, *) %onn. )(5, )/ 4. (+, 1(5,)2 .................................................. Marjorie Partch v. Matthew #aputo, %onn. 0up. "0$ %&'(('*++,.8.'0 1)+((2 ........................................................ Marjorie Partch v. Matthew #aputo, %onn. 0up. "0$ %&'(('*+(+).8'0 1)+((2 ........................................................ Marjorie Partch v. Wilton Meadows, %onn. 0up. "#$ %&'()'*+),-./'0 1)+(.2 ........................................................ $e nolds v. %wen, .- %onn. 0up. (+8, ((-, .5+ 4.)d /-. 1(,882 ................................................................................... $osado v. Brid&eport $oman #atholic 'iocesan #orp., 14.%. Ho. (5**,2 *+ %onn. 4pp. (.-= 8/5 4.)d ,(* 1)+++2 ........................................................................................... (turman v. (ocha, (,( %onn. (, *'8, -*. 4.)d /)8, /.+ 1(,5.2 .......................................................................................... P)=0, (5 (5 (.,(5 *,5 5,(-,)* (5

, (+

vi

Willow v. )rencom 1Ho. "0$ %&',/'+(-*++.'02 )+++ %onn. 0up. 5)5 BKnpublishedC .................................................................. Wilton Meadows v. 'oroth (. Partch (#onser*ator+ Matthew ". #aputo), %onn. 0up., "#$ %&'(('/+),/).'0 1)+((2 ....................................................... STATUTES

)/,)*

)(

%onnecticut ;eneral 0tatute < -/a')- .................................................................... 5,(),(., (5,)%onnecticut ;eneral 0tatute < -/a'(5* .................................................................. %onnecticut ;eneral 0tatute < /)'(+) ................................................................... %onnecticut ;eneral 0tatute < /)'(+8 .................................................................... %onnecticut ;eneral 0tatute < -)+'((+a ................................................................ %onnecticut ;eneral 0tatute < -)+'((+b 1a2 ........................................................... "ederal Knfair $rade 3ractices 4ct B(/ K0% < -/C .................................................. "ederal 9edicaid ;uidelines -) K.0.%.4. < (.,*p1c21)21421iv2= K.3.9. < .+), 4.(.e. .......................................................................................... RULES %onnecticut 3ractice #ooA < ,'(5 ........................................................................... (+,((,(), and (/ "ederal Rule (,1a2 ................................................................................................... "ederal Rule )-1a2 ................................................................................................... MISCELLANEOUS %aron M 9ilne, #onnecticut ,oreclosures, () () *,5,(), (.,)-,((,(-, 4nd (5 ((,() )/ )/ )/ /,5,(), (.,16,).

vii

&ol. ), < ..')6( "raud, at p. /., 1/th ed.2 ...........................................................

)(

viii

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS $he present "oreclosure action was commenced on 9arch )*, )+(., by 3laintiff'4ppellee %itimortgage, Inc., against Defendants Dorothy 0. 3artch 1an 5-'year'old stroAe patient and Involuntarily %onserved 3erson2 and the 0tate of %onnecticut Department of 0ocial 0ervices, with a %omplaint and 0ummons filed in the 0uperior %ourt, in the 7udicial District of 0tamford > HorwalA, at 0tamford B4ppendiE 3art I, page )+C. 3laintiff'4ppellee’s present action seeAs the "oreclosure of a certain mortgage 1?the 9ortgage@2 encumbering the property Anown as )+ Devil’s ;arden Road in HorwalA, %onnecticut 1?the 3roperty@2, as provided by Defendant Dorothy 0. 3artch to 3laintiff’s alleged predecessor in interest, (st 4tlantic 9ortgage %ompany, on December ), )++/, to secure repayment of a corresponding promissory note in the original principal amount of N(./,+++ 1against a property then accurately valued at approEimately N-/+,+++2. A. H)*+,-./ D01)234 4s outlined in her )+() "ederal Foan 9odification 4pplication on file with 3laintiff'4ppellee, following her massive stroAe in 9arch )+(+, and since her contested, "raudulently 3rocured Involuntary %onservatorship in 7uly )+(+, approEimately N-++,+++ in Defendant Dorothy 0. 3artch’s assets 1other than her home2 have been li!uidated, !ualifying her for 9edicaid in )+((. 4t that time, the retired high school nglish teacher’s income 1a 0tate 3ension and 0ocial 0ecurity benefits2 was diverted from paying the 1otherwise unnecessary2 mortgage in !uestion. 4t the same time, all the legal authorities she had conferred upon her daughter, 9arDorie 3artch 1the 3roposed Intervening Defendant2 to represent and protect her wishes and Rights 1Durable 3ower of 4ttorney, Health %are Representative, 4ttorney'in'"act, 3re'

1

Designated %onservator2 B4ppendiE 3art I, DocAet ntry O((/, 9otion to #e 9ade a 3arty Defendant, 4pp.(, -+= ? Ehibit ,@ 4pp.(, /.C, were ignored and fraudulently superseded, without Due 3rocess BO()), ? Ehibit ,@ 4pp.(, (-,C. #oth Defendants’ Doint banA accounts 1to which 4ppellant also made deposits over the years2 were seized without warning or hearing, preventing 4ppellant’s retention of a sAilled 3robate litigator for several months, and creating a nearly impassible conundrum in the recourse available to 4ppellant, given the now circular, paradoEical, and proverbial ?Guestion of 0tanding@ BO()), 9otion to Reargue 9otion to #e 9ade a 3arty Defendant, pp. )'., ? Ehibit ,@ 4pp.(, ((-= (-,C. In point of fact, 4ppellant made regular deposits of her own monies to the Doint checAing account from which she personally wrote the monthly 9ortgage payment checAs. It is through no fault of their own that Defendant and 3roposed Defendant Dorothy and 9arDorie 3artch have not been permitted to live out their days in their own home, with full responsibility for any attendant liabilities, including any mortgage against the 3roperty. $hrough 4ppellant’s efforts, Defendant Dorothy 0. 3artch has been fully approved 1medically and financially, now that she is destitute2 for 0tate'funded home care for approEimately (5 months, through the 9edicaid program Anown as ?$he 9oney "ollows the 3erson@ 19"32 B4pp.(, -/C. B. O1 P253.6 I740*0,4 4ppellant 9arDorie 3artch has endeavored with 0tate Fegislators to strengthen and protect the authority of a Durable 3ower of 4ttorney instrument such that it cannot be so easily overturned without Due 3rocess before a fully !ualified 7udge in a %ourt of !uity. 0he is continuing to use her mother’s %ase'in'3oint in this effort to protect the %ivil Rights of our most vulnerable population P our Disabled and 0enior %itizens. Knder current practices,

2

virtually de facto ?"iduciaries@ are automatically empowered to seize assets for their own personal self'enrichment and protection, often leaving their victims and their families penniless to defend themselves through the very mechanisms bypassed in the first place. $his ?Involuntary Redistribution of 4ssets@ also precipitously shifts the 1much higher2 eEpense of the conse!uently minimal institutional care of the ?%onserved 3erson@ to the taEpayer, an abuse of the "ederal and 0tate 9edicaid programs about which the Hational 4ssociation to 0top ;uardian 4buse lobbies %ongress every year.

II. SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS Ln 7uly (8, )+(., the 3roposed Intervening Defendant, 4ppellant 9arDorie 3artch, the daughter of Defendant Dorothy 0. 3artch, filed a 9otion to #e 9ade a 3arty Defendant in the present "oreclosure proceeding BO((/, 4pp.(, -+C. $his 9ortgage is against her own permanent beloved family home of more than -+ years, where she cared full'time for her stroAe'patient mother for more than siE years, without any hint of negative incident, prior to her mother’s )+(+ Involuntary %onservatorship, "raudulently 3rocured by the nursing home 1?Iilton 9eadows@2 to which the daughter had brought her mother for short'term stroAe rehabilitation P the subDect of various concurrent litigations, as follows, and directly causal to the present proceeding. Ln 7uly )*, )+(., 3laintiff'4ppellee filed its LbDection to 4ppellant’s 9otion to #e 9ade a 3arty Defendant BO((8, 4pp.(, 85C, with the main argument that 4ppellant Does Hot 3ossess $itle to the 3roperty, substantiated by 3laintiff'4ppellee’s ? Ehibit 4,@ a )+(( Decree to Guiet $itle from the HorwalA'Iilton 3robate %ourt B4pp.(, 5)C.

3

Ln 7uly ),, )+(., Hon. Qevin $ierney Denied BO((/.5*C 4ppellant’s 9otion to #e 9ade a 3arty Defendant, for the stated reason that she Does Hot 3ossess $itle to the 3roperty B4pp.(, 58C. Knaware of this Ruling by the $rial %ourt, on 4ugust ), )+(., 4ppellant filed a 3roposed LbDection BO((,C to 3laintiff’s 9otion for 7udgment BO(+5C and 9isleading "ederal Foss 9itigation 3rograms 4ffidavit BO(+-, 4pp.(, ,)C= a Hotice of "iling of 3roposed Interrogatories BO()+C= and a 3roposed LbDection BO()(C to 3laintiff'4ppellee’s 9otion for Etension of $ime BO((*C. 4ppellant was advised by the $rial %ourt %lerA’s Lffice that she would be able to reclaim these items in the event that she was made a 3arty Defendant. Ihen 4ppellant learned of the $rial %ourt’s Denial of her 9otion, she resolved to Reargue, and to utilize these items as eEhibits BbelowC, incorporating them as arguments for the second $est for Inclusion under %onnecticut ;eneral 0tatute < /)'(+)6 i.e., having uni!ue information and evidence to contribute that is ?necessary for the %ourt to maAe a complete determination@ of the issues. 4t the same time that she learned of the $rial %ourt’s Denial of her 9otion, 4ppellant became aware of a favorable 4ugust (, )+(., #ridgeport 0uperior %ourt Decision BbelowC to uphold her five'count $ort %laim against the nursing home responsible for her mother’s "raudulently 3rocured %onservatorship, which not only defrauded Defendant Dorothy 0. 3artch of her fundamental %ivil Rights P a separate but not unrelated matter P but also defrauded 4ppellant of her 4uthority and ?0tanding@ to return Defendant Dorothy 0. 3artch to their shared home, to direct her health care, and to protect the 3roperty for both Defendants’ possession and use 1according to the 0enior 3artch’s wishes2, as well as 4ppellant’s "iduciary Responsibility to maintain or satisfy the 9ortgage in !uestion. 4gain6

4

9rs. 3artch’s 0tate 3ension and 0ocial 0ecurity benefits were and are currently diverted due to her 1otherwise unnecessary2 )+(( enrollment in 9edicaid= this steady income could guarantee the 9ortgage. 4nother property could have been sold to pay off the entire amount of the 9ortgage. 4ppellant was additionally defrauded of her proper authority, entitlement, and even her moral obligation and "iduciary Duty, under her mother’s Durable 3ower of 4ttorney, to transfer title to the 3roperty to her own name, as follows BO((/, 4pp.(, /.6 3aragraphs ?142,@ p. /.= ?132,@ p. /-, and most specifically6 ?1G2,@ p. /-C, as she was furthermore eligible to do under the "ederal 9edicaid ;uidelines for 3roperty $ransfers B#rief 3ages (/ and (*, belowC. It is reasonable, if somewhat unusual, to assert that 4ppellant was even defrauded of her potential liabilities regarding the 3roperty. Her claims to it, and its value, could conceivably be attached in any potential 7udgments against her. Ln 4ugust (,, )+(., 4ppellant filed a timely 9otion to Reargue BO()), 4pp.(, ((-C the $rial %ourt’s 7uly ),, )+(., Denial BO((/.5*C of her 9otion to #e 9ade a 3arty Defendant BO((/C. 0he presented the 4ugust (, )+(. #ridgeport 0uperior %ourt Decision Bsee #rief 3age (-, belowC in its entirety as her ? Ehibit #@ B4pp.(, (.+C. 0he also incorporated as eEhibits her previous "ilings of 3roposed Interrogatories and 3roposed LbDections BO((,, O()+, O()(= 4pp(. pp. 55, (++, (+*C P as reasons to -e .ncluded in the "oreclosure proceeding, given the significance of the evidence to be provided by 4ppellant’s participation. Ln 0eptember ,, )+(., the $rial %ourt granted 4ppellant’s 9otion for Reargument, and her Lral 4rgument was heard.

5

4ppellant was permitted at that time to present additional new evidence P discovered on 4ugust ), )+(. P of the nursing home’s Deliberate "raud, as well as the %ollusion of her mother’s first %ourt'4ppointed %onservator, in a suit brought by the nursing home in 7une )+(( against Defendant Dorothy 0. 3artch, claiming the suddenly contractually binding authority it had otherwise denied6 authority properly held by 4ppellant long before the time of her mother’s admission to the facility, and Anown to them long before the facility’s denial of it in its "raudulent 4pplication for Involuntary %onservatorship B4pp.(, (/5= 1Lral2 ? Ehibit 9,@ 4pp.(, (8.= 4ffidavit 1O(++..82, (8/ 13aragraph /2 and pp. (85'(55= $r., (8')-C. $he significance of this new evidence of 4ppellant’s Defrauded 4uthority P and therefore her Defrauded ?0tanding@ and ?Interest@ in the present "oreclosure matter P seemed to elude the $rial %ourt entirely. 0imilarly, although Hon. $ierney was aware of the case, and even brought it up himself, he did not seem to appreciate the relevant parallel of 4ppellant’s 0tanding to 4ppeal an earlier 3robate Decree to 0ell the 3roperty, as an ?4ggrieved 3arty@ under %;0 < -/a'(5*6 as 4ppellant had done in )+(( 1DocAet Ho. "0$'%&'(('*+(+).8'02 B$r., ),= -+C, and would do again. B$his case is no longer available to 4ppellant, having been withdrawn in )+((, due to the withdrawal of the prospective buyer of the 3roperty.C 4t the conclusion of the 0eptember ,, )+(., hearing, Hon. $ierney pronounced his Denial of 4ppellant’s underlying 9otion to #e 9ade a 3arty Defendant BO()).5*, 4pp.(, -, $r., -+C, again for the same reason6 3roposed Intervening Defendant Does Hot 3ossess $itle to the 3roperty.

6

Ln 0eptember .+, )+(., 4ppellant 9arDorie 3artch filed her timely Hotice of 4ppeal to this 4ppellate %ourt of the 0tate of %onnecticut, in order to protect her colorable #laim to an .nterest in the underlying 3roperty 1and the e!uity currently hidden therein2= as well as her ability to contribute information necessary for the proper administration of 7ustice= and thirdly, her mother’s ability to return to the family home BO()8, O()5, 4pp.(, /C. Ln Lctober (+, )+(., 4ppellant completed the "iling of this 4ppeal, and included a 3reliminary 0tatement of Issues B4pp.(, (*C. 4ppellant re!uests that the entire Record of 3roceedings in the $rial %ourt be included herein, including the %itations of Faw and Lpinion in related 0uperior %ourt Decisions to which she has referred concerning her 0tanding as an 4ggrieved 3arty in these matters.

III. ARGUMENT A. S4)408074 91 I,,20, 3roposed Intervening Defendant'4ppellant 9arDorie 3artch presents the following issues for this interlocutory appeal of the 0eptember ,, )+(., 0uperior %ourt Decision to Deny her 1Reargument of her2 9otion to #e 9ade a 3arty Defendant BO()).5*, 4pp.(, -C in the above'captioned "oreclosure matter, in which her mother, Dorothy 0. 3artch, is a Defendant6 Did the $rial %ourt give sufficient consideration to the facts, new evidence, legal arguments, and 0tate and "ederal 0tatutes !ualifying 3roposed Intervening Defendant to be cited in to this "oreclosure action concerning her own beloved permanent home of more than -+ years, where she cared for her stroAe'patient mother for more than siE

7

years B4pp.(, /+C: "ederal 9edicaid Faw BbelowC stipulates 4ppellant’s first right to ownership of their shared home after two years of home care. Ihy did the $rial %ourt ignore this instructive measure and relevant guideline 13aragraph - in 4ppellant’s original 7uly (8, )+(., 9otion to #e 9ade a 3arty Defendant BO((/, 4pp.(, -+C2 and Deny 4ppellant’s #laim to an .nterest in this "oreclosure proceeding: $his fully relevant criterion was also amplified in 4ppellant’s 9otion to Reargue B4pp.(, ((5C, and 9emorandum of Faw B4pp.(, ()-C. Ihy did the $rial %ourt also ignore 4ppellant’s points regarding her Defrauded 4uthority, 0tanding, and Rights concerning6 1(2 the title to the underlying 3roperty= and 1)2 her mother’s and her own right to possess and occupy the 3roperty, as is currently under 7udicial Review in Marjorie Partch v. Wilton Meadows, "#$ %&'()'*+),-./'0: 13aragraphs /'5 in 4ppellant’s original 9otion BO((/, 4pp.(, -+C= and throughout her written and oral Rearguments, see 4ugust (,, )+(., 9otion BO()), 4pp.(, ((-C and the 0eptember ,, )+(., $ranscript.2 4ppellant’s continued Eclusion would render a "inal $ermination of her ability to protect her #laims to an .nterest in her permanent home of more than -+ years. 0he would also be denied her claim to the substantial e!uity in the 3roperty, which is currently being fraudulently withheld from consideration. 4s the sole heir of Defendant Dorothy 0. 3artch Bsee Fast Iill M $estament, 4pp.(, (*8C, 4ppellant also has a legitimate interest in the actual value of the state, if nothing else. It is perpleEing that the $rial %ourt even referred to B$r., ),, -+C the 3robate 4ppeal brought by 4ppellant in )+((, concerning a proposed ?short sale@ of the 3roperty 1DocAet Ho. "0$ %&'(('*+(+).8'02. 0he was clearly eEercising her 0tanding as an 4ggrieved

8

3arty under %;0 < -/a'(5* and %;0 < -/a')- 1regarding "raud2, which she would do again. How did the $rial %ourt fail to recognize that 4ppellant’s 0tanding to bring 3robate 4ppeals esta-lished her ongoing interest in the 3roperty bacA in )+((: 4nd that full title to the 3roperty is not a prere!uisite to her Inclusion: 4ppellant seeAs a reversal of the $rial %ourt’s 1,>,>(.2 Decision B4pp.(, -C and a reconsideration of her ?direct and immediate interest that will be affected by the Dudgment,@ as this 4ppellate %ourt did in the case of $osado v. Brid&eport $oman #atholic 'iocesan #orp., *+ %onn. 4pp. (.-, (-*, 8/5 4.)d ,(* 1)+++2. In that case B4pp.)., (,/C the seven priests seeAing to be included in a proceeding against another individual priest prevailed on appeal due to their right to protect their own interests, in that case their privacy and that of their clients. $he $rial %ourt erred in its Dudgment that the ?non'party@ priests were not directly affected by subpoenas for their own personal records, and the 4ppellate %ourt rightfully reversed the $rial %ourt’s Decision, and upheld the rights of the ?non'parties.@ 4ppellant hereby incorporates by reference all of the applicable Rules, and 0tate and "ederal 0tatutes, as well as their successful argumentation in favor of the Inclusion of the ?non'party@ priests, into this brief. In the present case, the 4ppellant has shown, and will demonstrate again, her own analogous individual Rights to protect, ancillary to her mother’s, of course, but meaningful nevertheless BO()), 4pp.(, ((-C P and also at Deopardy and redressable in the present case. Lne such claim would be her interest in the value of state as a whole. $his claim never has been her primary motivation= but given her current inability to represent her

9

mother’s Rights directly, 4ppellant must advocate for her own in order to protect her mother’s as well. 1. >N060,,)*?; v,. >I7+.,/07,)530; P)*4.0, 4ppellant realizes that she does not possess outright title to the 3roperty. 0he also realizes that she is not named on the 9ortgage. 4s such, she concedes that she may not !ualify as what the %ourts would classify 1after much historic and evolutionary Jsemantic cavilling’ over the nomenclature, as an JIndispensable’ 3arty to the "oreclosure proceeding per se, as Defendant Dorothy 0. 3artch indisputably does , e.&., given her clear title to the 3roperty, and being named on the 9ortgage in !uestion, according to the provisions of the %onnecticut 3ractice #ooA < ,'(5. However, 4ppellant does contend that according to the 0upreme %ourt Ruling in (turman v. (ocha, (,( %onn. (, *'8, -*. 4.)d /)8, /.+ 1(,5.2, she is at least a JHecessary’ 3arty. $here is clearly a reason for the distinction that has been drawn between the two terms over the years, and even if 4ppellant is not as JIndispensable’ as her mother is to the present case, e.&., that is not a prere!uisite for her Inclusion. 4ppellant contends her status to be, at a minimum, in the second class of permissible Intervenors by Right, at the very least, given her %laim to an Interest in the 3roperty, and also given the information, evidence and Discovery that she can contribute toward6 ?leaving the controversy in such condition that its final termination may be wholly BinCconsistent with e!uity and good conscience.@

10

In (turman v. (ocha, the 0upreme %ourt purportedly distinguished between JHecessary’ and JIndispensable’ 3arties as follows 1internal !uotations and citations omitted2. #oth should be admitted as Intervenors by Right, as 4ppellant asserts6 ?3arties have been characterized as indispensable when they not only have an interest in the controversy, but an interest of such a nature that the final decree cannot be made without either affecting that interest, or leaving the controversy in such condition that its final termination may be wholly inconsistent with e!uity and good conscience. Hecessary parties, however, have been described as persons having an interest in the controversy, and who ought to be made parties, in order that the court may act on that rule which re!uires it to decide on, and finally deter' mine the entire controversy, and do complete Dustice, by adDusting all the rights involved in itR.@ B. S4)408074 91 4-0 C),0: T-0 T*.)3 C92*4;, E**9*, 91 L)< Knder both tests for Inclusion under the Faw provided in %onnecticut ;eneral 0tatutes < /)'(+) and < /)'(+8, 4ppellant should have been made a 3arty'Defendant in the present "oreclosure proceeding. $hese 0tatutes do not re!uire that a 3roposed Defendant possess outright title to the underlying 3roperty in order to be included as a 3arty' Defendant in a "oreclosure action, but merely an interest. T-0 C977064.624 P*)64.60 B99@ also delineates this very clearly6 A %-1# provides, in relevant part6 ?BiCf a person not a party has an interest OR title which the Dudgment will affect, the Dudicial authority, on its motion, shall direct that person to be made a party,@ emphasis added. $he established distinction between Jinterest’ and Jtitle’ certainly eEists for a reason, as does the distinction between JIndispensable’ and JHecessary’ 3arties. 4ccordingly, the $rial %ourt’s reasoning was eEcessively narrow in its insistence on limiting the !uestion to outright title, per se. 3lease see the 0eptember ,, )+(., $ranscript, 3age -+, for the conclusions of the Honorable Qevin $ierney6

11

?Ho claim of ownership of the real property or affecting the title can be gained by the lawsuit filed of 9arDorie 3artch versus Iilton 9eadows Healthcare %orporation, only monetary damages. 9onetary damages may very well be measured in that case if the plaintiff is successful by the right of occupancy that she had or may have had or continued to have in the property at )+ Devil’s ;arden, but the title to the real property is not affected by that lawsuit. ?Hone of the other arguments that have been furnished to this %ourt are appropriate for a motion to re'argueR.@ Bemphasis addedC. Ihich is to say, the $rial %ourt disregarded as Jinappropriate’ all of the following points, while simultaneously holding 4ppellant to the false standard of being an JIndespensable’ 3arty 1rather than merely JHecessary’2 in order to be Included6 a2 the applicability of %;0 < /)'(+) to 4ppellant’s 9otion to #e 9ade a 3arty= b2 the applicability of %;0 < /)'(+8 to 4ppellant’s 9otion to #e 9ade a 3arty= c2 1based upon2 the applicability of "ederal Rules (,1a2 and > or )-1a2= d2 the applicability of 3# < ,'(5 to 4ppellant’s 0tanding= e2 the relevance of %;0 < -/a'(5* to 4ppellant’s 0tanding= f2 the "ederal 9edicaid Faw regarding 4dult %hildren %aregivers BbelowC= g2 the relevance of her mother’s Defrauded Durable 3ower of 4ttorney= h2 4ppellant’s Defrauded 4uthority and 0tanding= i2 %;0 < -/a')- regarding that "raud= D2 the Fimited 7urisdiction of the 3robate %ourt concerning !uestions of title= A2 her uni!ue Anowledge concerning the factual history of the 9ortgage= and l2 !uestions of ongoing "raud, especially concerning the actual value of the 3roperty.

C. T-0 S4)7+)*+ 91 R0v.0<: A De Novo R0v.0< 91 4-0 L)< ;iven all the reasons cited herein, in her 3reliminary 0tatement of Issues B4pp.(, (*C, and in her 4ugust (,, )+(., written 9otion to Reargue the present 9otion B4pp.(, ((-, with 9emorandum of Faw, 4pp.(, ()(C, and in her 0eptember ,, )+(., Lral 4rgument Bsee

12

$ranscriptC 4ppellant seeAs a 3lenary Review by the 4ppellate %ourt of the Ruling of Faw by the $rial %ourt= i.e., a 'e No*o Review of the applicable 0tate and "ederal Faws, and re!uests Lral 4rgument. 4gain6 $his appeal is properly brought before this %ourt because 4ppellant’s continued Eclusion would effectively $erminate her Rights to protect her own #laims to an .nterest in the 3roperty, and the substantial e!uity established in the 3roperty that is currently being disregarded and hidden= and her Eclusion would also prevent her mother’s long'belated return to their much'beloved shared family home of many years. $he 3robate %ourt’s valuation of the 3roperty at N))/,+++ BO((/, 4pp.(, -,C is roughly e!uivalent to the %ity of HorwalA’s valuation of the highly desirable (>. acre of land alone, which abuts a forested valley containing protected wetlands, and which lies immedi' ately outside the Rowayton $own Fine. $his suspicious figure essentially discounts the handsome and well built five'bedroom (,.( %olonial structure, with a modern eat'in Aitchen, and two decAs and a screened'in porch overlooAing the surrounding woodlands P easily doubling the overall value of the 3roperty BO((/, 4pp.(, -8C, despite its neglect B4pp.(, (+5'((.C 1and notwithstanding the claim of N(/,+++S for carpentry services billed to the state2 since the Involuntary %onservatorship of the Defendant. D. A//033)74;, S4)7+.7= U7+0* S4)40 )7+ F0+0*)3 L)< 4ppellant hereby cites into this brief, the )+(( arguments, points of law and conclusions offered by the Honorable dward Qarazin in his upholding of 4ppellant’s 0tanding under %;0 < -/a'(5* and %;0 < -/a')- to 4ppeal 3robate Decrees6 Marjorie Partch v. Matthew #aputo, 0uperior %ourt, 7udicial District of 0tamford > HorwalA at 0tamford,

13

DocAet Ho. %&'(('*++,.8.'0 10eptember )., )+((26 B4pp.(, *.C= as well as the )+(. arguments, points of law and Decision of Honorable 9ary 0ommer BbelowC B4pp.(, (.+C. In addition, after caring for her mother in their shared home for more than siE years, according to "ederal 9edicaid Faw BbelowC, 4ppellant has a clear, definite and colorable #/".M 0% "N .N01$1(0 in the 3roperty= as well as uni!ue bacAground Anowledge to contribute, especially in light of all the related litigations involving still'emerging evidence of "raud leading up to and possibly including the present "oreclosure proceeding6 CGS A 5$-1"$: ?Kpon motion made by any party or nonparty to a civil action R B1C may be made a party by the court if that person has or claims an interest in the con' troversy, or any part thereof, adverse to the plaintiff= OR B$C shall be made a party by the court if that person is necessar for a complete determination or settlement of any !uestion involved therein R shall be made a defendant in the controversy,@ emphasis added. !.4- 4-0 C)v0)4: ?R provided no person who is immune from liability shall be made a defendant in the controversy.@ B24 4-0 S2/*080 C92*4 E+.64: ?In e!uity proceedings, all persons interested should be made parties,@ 8, %. */..

P)*4 1. T-0 F.*,4 T0,4 19* I7632,.97 U7+0* CGS A 5$-1"$: 'I740*0,4( 4ppellant refers to her colorable #/".M 0% "N .N01$1(0 in the underlying property. 4ppellant’s interest is demonstrated by the following four points, beginning with the affirmation of a recent 0uperior %ourt Decision favorable to 3roposed Defendant’s five' count $ort %laim regarding her mother’s "raudulently 3rocured %onservatorship 1causally related to the present case26

14

B)C B*.+=0/9*4 S2/0*.9* C92*4 D06.,.97 $his 15>(>(.2 0uperior %ourt Decision is included in its entirety as ? Ehibit #@ to 4ppellant’s 15>(,>(.2 9otion to Reargue BO()), 4pp.(, (.+C6 Marjorie Partch v. Wilton Meadows Healthcare #orp., 0uperior %ourt, 7udicial District of "airfield at #ridgeport, DocAet Ho. %&'()'*+),-./ 14ugust (, )+(.2. In upholding 4ppellant’s Defrauded 0tanding in this five'count $ort %laim, the Honorable 9ary 0ommer at #ridgeport 0uperior %ourt concludes in her (5'page 9emorandum of Decision Denying Defendant’s 9otion to Dismiss 19otion O(+*.++26 ?"inally, Dust because the plaintiff B9arDorie 3artchC has not alleged that she was a fee holder or lease holder of her mother’s personal residence does not re!uire the court to conclude that the plaintiff does not possess a redressable interest in the residenceR. ?$hus, for the purposes of the present motion, the plaintiff can claim a legally redressable inDury in the form of eviction from the residence@ Bpp. (*'(8C, emphasis added. B5C A//033)74;, D01*)2+0+ A24-9*.4?, S4)7+.7=, )7+ R.=-4, U7+0* 4-0 POA 4ppellant’s ? Jdirect and substantial’ interest in the subDect matter of the B"oreclosureC litigation@ 1under %onnecticut 3ractice #ooA < ,'(52 is further demonstrated by 4ppellant’s Defrauded "uthorit , vested in her by her mother’s Durable 3ower of 4ttorney, to transfer title to the 3roperty to her own name, as follows BO((/, 4pp.(, p. /., 3aragraphs ?142,@ p. /.= ?132,@ p. /-, and most emphatically6 ?1G2,@ p. /-C6 'D ENO! ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, which are intended to constitute a ; H R4F 3LI R L" 4$$LRH T pursuant to %onnecticut 0tatutory 0hort "orm 3ower of 4ttorney 4ct6 ?$hat I, DLRL$HT 0. 34R$%H, of )+ Devil’s ;arden Road R ?do hereby appoint 94R7LRI 34R$%H, of )+ Devil’s ;arden Road R ?9y attorney'in'fact $L 4%$6

15

'F.*,4: In my name place and stead in any way which I could do, if I were personally present, with respect to the following matters as each of them is defined in the %onnecticut 0tatutory 0hort "orm 3ower of 4ttorney 4ct to the eEtent that I may be permitted by law to act through an agent6 ?142 real estate transactions= including the power to transfer and convey real property including property located at )+ Devil’s ;arden Road R

'F92*4-: Iithout in any way limiting the generality of the foregoing powers, this DKR4#F ; H R4F 3LI R L" 4$$LRH T also includes the power to6 ?132 maAe gifts in any amount, outright or in trust 1including without limitation, creating, funding, revoAing or amending a trust or adding property to an eEisting or subse!uently created trust2, of my property to any person, includin& m attorne 2in2fact3 create, eEercise or release a power of appointment pursuant to %onnecticut ;eneral 0tatutes 0ection ()'.-/b et se4., including the power to create, eEercise or release a power of appointment in fa*or of himself or herself, his or her creditors, his or her estate or the creditors of his or her estate. Hot' withstanding the previous sentence, m attorne 2in2fact can create, eEercise or release a power of appointment for his or her -enefit onl as necessar for the attorne 2in2fact!s health, education, maintenance or support 5” 1 mphasis added.2

?1G2

$his document again demonstrates, along with the Fast Iill and $estament of Defendant Dorothy 0. 3artch B4pp.(, (*8C, the intention of the Defendant to compensate and protect her daughter for her commitment to her mother’s home care for the last years of her life. 4s well as the authorit to transfer the underlying 3roperty to her own name, 4ppellant had the proper and legal eli&i-ilit to do so, under the F0+0*)3 M0+.6).+ R230, concerning the 'C)*0=.v0*;, EF60/4.97( 49 4-0 P*9/0*4? T*)7,10* L99@B)6@ P0*.9+: B6C F0+0*)3 M0+.6).+ L)< ), )7 A//*9/*.)40 S4)7+)*+ 91 R0v.0<: ?$ransfer of the home by the individual or his or her spouse to6

16

4 son or daughter who lived in the home for at least two years prior to the date of institutionalization and provided care that permitted the individual to remain at home to avoid institutionalization@6 G$ U.S.C.A. A 13%6/B6CB$CBACB.vCH U.P.M. A 3"$% A.1.0.

Knder "ederal Faw, after two years of caring for her mother at home, 4ppellant was legally and rightfully entitled to full ownership of the 3roperty. 4ppellant cared for her mother for more than siE years BDoctor’s Hote6 4pp.(, /+C. How can she not be a 3arty to this proceeding: How can she not have a #laim to an .nterest6 B+C A//033)74;, R.=-4123 A24-9*.4? !*97=1233? S2/0*,0+0+ $he HorwalA'Iilton 3robate %ourt Decree to Guiet $itle B3laintiff’s ? Ehibit 4,@ 4pp.(, 5.C arose from the "raudulently 3rocured %onservatorship that Defendant Dorothy 0. 3artch was wrongfully placed under by Iilton 9eadows in )+(+, and which is the subDect of various pending litigations. 4ccordingly, this )+(( 3robate Decree, presented in 3laintiff'4ppellee’s 18>)*>(.2 BO((8, 4pp.(, 85C LbDection to 4ppellant’s 9otion to #e 9ade a 3arty Defendant BO((/, 4pp.(, -+C, should not be considered the ?final word@ on the !uestion of the rightful ownership of the 3roperty in this matter, given the still'emerging evidence and unfolding prosecution of "raud concerning 4ppellant’s bypassed and superseded 4uthority P as well as the Fimited 7urisdiction of the 3robate %ourt. $his assumption appears to be another error in the $rial %ourt’s Decision Hot to Include 3roposed Defendant P again ignoring 4ppellant’s previously established 0tanding to 4ppeal Decrees of 3robate= as well as the nature of the "raud in !uestion, which invoAes the !uitable 3owers of the 0uperior and 4ppellate %ourts= as well as the propriety of a collateral attacA.

17

Iith reference to "raud, concerning this particular case, please see the thoughtful )+(( 0uperior %ourt Lpinion included as ? Ehibit ;@ B4pp.(, *.C in 4ppellant’s original 9otion to #e 9ade a 3arty Defendant BO((/, 4pp(., -+C, wherein the Honorable dward Qarazin upheld that under %;0 < -/a')-, 3robate %ourt Decrees are subDect to collateral attacA in the event of "raud B4pp.(, *.= *5'8.C. 3lease note in addition, the 0uperior %ourt’s discussion of the 3robate %ourt’s lacA of Durisdiction to settle disputed titles to property B4pp.(, 8)= 4pp.), (,(C6 R0=)*+.7= F*)2+230743? P*962*0+ P*95)40 D06*00,: CGS A G5)-$G: In Mallor !s "ppeal, *) %onn. )(5, )/ 4. (+, 1(5,)2 B4pp.), (,(C, the %ourt con' cluded that without the !uitable Guestion of "raud, the 0uperior %ourt is limited to the Durisdiction of the 3robate %ourt and cannot determine title to property6 ?$he probate courts Jcan neither try titles to property nor determine !uestions of estoppel, and the 0uperior %ourt, sitting for the trial of a case liAe this, taAes the place of the probate court from which it came, and can do no more than could have been done by that court.’ 1Internal !uotation marAs omitted.2 Id., )).. Heverthe' less, this case is also distinguished from Reynolds v. Lwen, supra, .- %onn. 0up. (+8, and its progeny in that the plaintiff did not allege fraud, accident or mistaAe and, therefore, did not invoAe the e!uitable powers of the court. $he court did not suggest that the superior court would be barred from eEercising its e!uitable powers to the eEtent that the plaintiff alleged that the probate decree was procured by fraud, accident or mistaAe. $o the contrary, the court stated that ?no order made by a court of probate upon any matter within its Durisdiction shall be attacAed collaterally e7cept for fraudR.@ 1 mphasis added= internal !uotation marAs omitted.2 Id., ))+')(.

P)*4 $. T-0 S0697+ T0,4 19* I7632,.97 U7+0* CGS A 5$-1"$: 'I719*8)4.97( 4s well as her above %laims to an .nterest in the 3roperty, 4ppellant has established that her participation in the present action is necessary for the upper %ourts to maAe a ?complete determination@ of the issues at hand, for at least three additional reasons, as follows. Ihile perhaps not as technically JIndispensable’ as her mother’s, e.&., 4ppellant’s

18

?presence is Jabsolutely re!uired 8i.e., JHecessary’C in order to assure a fair and e!uitable trial,’ @ Biro v. Hill, )(- %onn. (, /'8, /8+ 4.)d (5), (5-'5/ 1(,,+2. B)C M9*4=)=0 C97v0?)760 49 P3).74.11 If 4ppellant is permitted Discovery, as her mother’s daughter, legal representative, live'in caregiver, and > or advocate over the past decade, even more legitimate !uestions will come to light, given her uni!ue Anowledge, documentation, evidence, and 3roposed Interrogatories BO()+C regarding the ownership and transfer history of the 9ortgage in !uestion. 0he has serious !uestions regarding the alleged )+() conveyance to %itimortgage. $hese !uestions, given her Anowledge of the history of the 9ortgage in !uestion, are reasons for her Inclusion, which the $rial %ourt overlooAed. $he history as claimed by %itimortgage omits an intervening transfer, from (st 4tlantic 9ortgage to "lagstar #anA in )++*, and states that %itimortgage ac!uired the 9ortgage, directly from (st 4tlantic, in )+(). 4s 4ppellant has indicated BO()), 4pp(., ((8= O()+, 4pp(., (++C, this is no more accurate than 3laintiff’s false claim that Defendant Dorothy 0. 3artch did not apply for a "ederal Hardship'#ased Foan 9odification BbelowC= or than the purported ?fair marAet value@ of the 3roperty Babove and belowC, which sale price would constitute a second "raud if permitted. B5C P3).74.11;, M.,30)+.7= F0+0*)3 L9,, M.4.=)4.97 P*9=*)8, A11.+)v.4 "or another eEample, in her 3roposed LbDection BO((,, 4pp.(, 55= O()), 4pp.(, ((8C to 3laintiff’s 9isleading 4ffidavit BO(+-, 4pp.(, ,)C, 4ppellant presents evidence of Defendant Dorothy 0. 3artch’s 4pplication for a ;overnment'0ponsored Hardship' #ased Foan 9odification initiated in 4ugust )+(), in direct opposition to 3laintiff'

19

4ppellee’s false statements that she made no such 4pplication, and was unresponsive to 3laintiff'4ppellee’s attempts to eEtend this opportunity. $hese misrepresentations by 3laintiff'4ppellee could potentially rush the case toward 7udgment, without prior 9ediation, were it not for the Intervention of the 3roposed Defendant'4ppellant. Hone of the 3robate %ourt'4ppointed %onservators who have filed an 4ppearance on behalf of Defendant Dorothy 0. 3artch in this proceeding has raised this LbDection. $his point alone, with the following, is reason enough for the 3roposed Defendant’s Inclusion. B6C A642)3 V)320 91 4-0 P*9/0*4? 4nd third6 4s 4ppellant alerted the $rial %ourt in 3aragraph . of her original 8>(8>(. 9otion BO((/, 4pp.(, -+C, the 3roperty has been grossly undervalued by both the 3robate %ourt and the 3laintiff'4ppellee. ven with its currently deplorable

appearance, staged as it is to looA liAe a ?tear'down@ P and potentially poised for what "oreclosure "raud eEperts term a ?"lop@ 1as opposed to a ?"lip@2 Bsee belowC P professionally prepared 9arAet %omparisons are coming in at a significantly higher price point. $his indicates substantial e!uity established in the 3roperty, currently being disregarded. P24 )794-0* <)?: T-0*0 )*0 G" ?0)*, 91 0I2.4? -.++07 .7 4-0 P*9/0*4? 4-)4 A//033)74 ., 27.I203? /9,.4.970+, 894.v)40+, )7+ 074.430+ 49 /*94064: Iere it not for the 3roperty’s current ?deconstructed@ appearance and devaluation Bsee photographs in 4ppellant’s 15>)>(.2 3roposed LbDection to 3laintiff'4ppellee’s 9otion for Etension of $ime 1O()(, 4pp.(, (+*'((.2C, the 3roperty’s actual marAet value would correspond with its commercial listing price range of N-*5,+++S>', which

20

is consistent with its 18+U2 taE assessment at N.)+,+++ B4pp.(, --C. 4s noted in 4ppellant’s original 9otion to #e 9ade a 3arty Defendant BO((/, 4pp.(, -+C, N-*5,+++ B4pp.(, -8C is more than double the current 3robate %ourt valuation of the 3roperty 1N))/,+++2 B4pp.(, -,C. 4ll of these points regarding the 3roperty’s actual value and hidden e!uity were raised and eEhibited B?4,@ ?%@C in 4ppellant’s original 9otion to #e 9ade a 3arty= and repeated in her 9otion to Reargue BO()), 4pp.(, ((-C, and are legitimate reasons for her Inclusion. R0)3 E,4)40 F*)2+ D01.7.4.97 19* ) 'F39/( ?Ksually associated with a short sale, an appraiser, and > or real estate agent intentionally undervalues real property to have the lender approve a short sale and waive any remaining debt. $he new buyer, often as part of a conspiracy with the borrower > seller, then re'sells the property for a higher amount immediately after the short sale, and splits the proceeds with the borrower,@ Denis R. %aron and ;eoffrey Q. 9ilne, #onnecticut ,oreclosures, &ol. ), < ..')6( "raud, at p. /., 1/th ed.2 B4pp.), )).C. Lbviously, there are many possible variations on this theme.

E. F2*4-0* A*=28074, 19* I7632,.97 C9760*7.7= P94074.)3 F*)2+ )7+ 'U7630)7 H)7+,( 1. C9332,.v0 S2.4 )7+ S-9*4 S)30 A=*008074 4t Lral Reargument to #e 9ade a 3arty Defendant on 0eptember ,, )+(., 4ppellant presented recently discovered new evidence of the deliberately perpetrated "raud against both 3artch Defendants B$r., (8')-C. $his evidence also demonstrates the culpability of the 3redecessor 3robate %ourt'4ppointed %onservator for Defendant Dorothy 0. 3artch, a real estate attorney who nominally represented the Defendant in the following apparently collusive suit. $his point is pivotal to the present issue of 4ppellant’s proper ?0tanding@6

21

B)C $he following !uestionable )+(( suit was brought simultaneously with the !uestionable and duly appealed 3robate Decreed ?short sale@ agreement negoti' ated with 3laintiff'4ppellee’s representatives, for a sale price of approEimately /+U of the 3roperty’s value. Wilton Meadows v. 'oroth (. Partch (#onser*ator+ Matthew ". #aputo) , 0uperior %ourt, 7udicial District of "airfield at #ridgeport, DocAet Ho. %&'(('/+),/).'0 17une ), )+((2. ntry Ho. (++..8 B4pp.(, (8/C on this DocAet is an 4ffidavit by Iilton 9eadows that asserts a contractual responsibility to pay pursuant to the signature of the 4ppellant as ?4ttorney'in'"act@ for Dorothy 0. 3artch= i.e., 4ppel' lant’s improperly superseded authority, which Iilton 9eadows has persistently denied, and > or denied Anowledge about, in every other %ourt B4pp.(, (8*, 3aragraph /, $r., (8')-C. "or eEample, see the original 7uly 5, )+(+, 4pplication for Involuntary %onservator' ship, ? Ehibit "@ to 4ppellant’s initial 18>(8>(.2 9otion to #e 9ade a 3arty Defendant BO((/, 4pp.(, *(C. $his 4pplication misrepresents that 4ppellant’s authority was ?KnAnown@ and > or did not eEist. However, it was how 9rs. 3artch was admitted. %ompare the )+(( Wilton Meadows v. 'oroth (. Partch 4ffidavit, which included as an eEhibit Iilton 9eadows’ 4dmissions documents also endorsing 4ppellant’s authority, co'signed by 4ppellant and Iilton 9eadows’ Director of 4dmissions on "pril 9:, 9;<;. B4pp.(, (85'(55.C $his suit presented a teEtbooA occasion for the eEercise of 7udicial stoppel, had the first %ourt'4ppointed %onservator been alert to the opportunity. $. S.=7.1.6)760 91 F*)2+ 49 A//033)74;, S4)7+.7= Ihile the Honorable Qevin $ierney did laughingly acAnowledge the absurdity of Iilton 9eadows’ denial of 4ppellant’s authority B$r., ))C, he did not seem to appreciate the gravity of the "raud, or its impact= or its relevance to the present case and 9otion for Inclusion6 i.e., its tautological relationship to 4ppellant’s Bapparent lacA ofC rightful position or ?0tanding@= or the resultant implications regarding further potential improprieties in the instant "oreclosure proceeding, initiated under the tenure of the 3redecessor %onservator, 9atthew 4. %aputo 1?9r. %aputo@2 P and for which 9r. %aputo filed an 4ppearance on

22

4pril (*, )+(. B4pp.(, .+C. It is not only the fact of the "raud in !uestion, but its N"0=$1 1or ?content@2 that constitutes its significance to 4ppellant’s Right to participate in the present proceeding. In the words of her Lctober (+, )+(., 3reliminary 0tatement of Issues B4pp.(, (*C, 4ppellant should be granted the opportunity and platform for 7ustice to seeA the answers to her !uestions, i.e., to participate in Discovery, because6 I" HL$ "LR $H 1%RI9IH4F, %F400 D " FLHT2 "R4KD L" IIF$LH 9 4DLI0, $H 3RL3 R$T ILKFD # FLH; $L 433 FF4H$, KHD R $H 4K$HLRI$T L" H R 9L$H R’0 DKR4#F 3LI R L" 4$$LRH T 4HD $H " D R4F 9 DI%4ID %4R ;I& R’0 V% 3$ILH. 4ppellant articulated these points at length, in $ranscript pages ))'.+. 3. O7=9.7= F*)2+ 4t Lral 4rgument on 0eptember ,, )+(., 4ppellant further demonstrated 9r. %aputo’s participation in the ongoing "raud against both 3artch Defendants, presenting a 9otion that 9r. %aputo submitted to the 3robate %ourt on 9arch )), )+(., a mere four days before the filing of the present "oreclosure action. $he $rial %ourt did indulge its thorough description and discussion, despite 4ppellee’s LbDection that this 9arch )) 9otion was not included in 4ppellant’s original 18>(8>(.2 9otion to #e 9ade a 3arty Defendant B$r., )-C. G. F).32*0 49 B*.7= S2.4 Ln 7uly (8, )+(., 4ppellant did not anticipate that 3laintiff'4ppellee would raise the !uestion of the 3robate Decree to Guiet $itle in 3laintiff'4ppellee’s LbDection BO((8C to her Inclusion= and she had not yet discovered the above'mentioned )+(( 4ffidavit by Iilton 9eadows B4pp.(, (8/C. 4t that time, in 7uly, it was not reasonable to anticipate the

23

relevance of this 9arch )), )+(., misrepresentation by 9r. %aputo that he had ?no Anowledge@ of the facts in !uestion P i.e., the duly conferred authority of 4ppellant, and Iilton 9eadows’ Anowledge and deliberate misrepresentation of same. #ut if 9r. %aputo represented Defendant Dorothy 0. 3artch in )+((, then he had Anowledge of the eEistence of this 4ffidavit and the 4pril )+(+ signature pages evincing the proper authority of 4ppellant B$r., )5, 4pp.(, (85'(55C. He therefore Anows that Defendant Dorothy 0. 3artch has an even more viable claim against Iilton 9eadows than her daughter, whose rightful authority he improperly bypassed and superseded. $his new evidence has recently been brought to the attention of the #ridgeport 0uperior %ourt, as well as the HorwalA 3robate %ourt, and 4ppellant has re'petitioned that %ourt to bring suit against Iilton 9eadows on behalf of Defendant Dorothy 0. 3artch B$r., )5C. $o date, the 3robate %ourt is blocAing that suit from being brought before a %ourt of !uity, with a fully !ualified 7udge and impartial 7ury to maAe the appropriate "indings of "act and Faw regarding the Rights of the ?%onserved 3erson,@ and thereby preventing the process of her Involuntary %onservatorship from coming to the light of day. $his suit could produce a lot of revenue for 9rs. 3artch’s long'withheld restorative stroAe therapy, in her own home. 5. J9.74 D0)3.7=, It seemed that 4ppellant’s entire point driving her !uestions regarding the actions of the first %onservator for Defendant Dorothy 0. 3artch in his Doint dealings with 3laintiff' 4ppellee’s representatives was completely lost on the $rial %ourt6

24

B)C "or eEample, their shared intention in )+(( to eEecute their ?short sale@ at a price, again, far below marAet value 1N)-/,+++2. 14gainst which 4ppellant eEercised her established 0tanding to 4ppeal Decrees of 3robate under %;0 < -/a'(5* and %;0 < -/a')-.2 B5C $his !uestionable short sale agreement was negotiated simultaneously with the )+(( collusive suit between Iilton 9eadows and 9r. %aputo 1ostensibly representing Defendant Dorothy 0. 3artch2. B6C 4nother red flag is 9r. %aputo’s Anowledge of Defendant’s 4pplication for a Foan 9odification in )+() B4pp.(, ,*C. 4ppellant drew the potential comparison to the "iduciary aspects of Willow v. )rencom 1)+++2 %onn. 0up. 5)5 B4pp.), )+-C in her Lral 4rgument re!uesting to participate in Discovery B$r., )5= .)'.-C. $he relevance of this parallel and important 1albeit unpublished2 suit, which only succeeded through Discovery and appeals, also seemed to escape the $rial %ourt’s notice. Ihile neither %itimortgage, Inc. nor (st 4tlantic 9ortgage %ompany 1nor "lagstar #anA2 ever owed a "iduciary Duty per se to Defendant Dorothy 0. 3artch, as her various %ourt'4ppointed %onservator1s2 did and do, the companies that were engaged in business with the elderly and disabled Defendant did and do have an ethical duty to their long'time consumer, her family, her heirs and assigns, the community at large, and the business community, particularly the troubled mortgage and banAing industries 1currently being bailed out by the taEpayer2 P as well as their duty to the 0tate P to adhere to principles of good faith, and to the "ederal Knfair

25

$rade 3ractices 4ct B(/ K0% < -/C, as well as the %onnecticut Knfair $rade 3ractices 4ct 1%K$342, %;0 < -)+'((+a et se4. 4s 4ppellant pointed out in her 9otion to Reargue BO()), 4pp.(, ((5C6 0ection -)+'((+b 1a2 states eEplicitly6 ?Ho person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.@ +C Tet another point is 9r. %aputo’s failure to pursue 0pecial 9ediation, when his ward had completed 4pplications for both $he 9oney "ollows the 3erson 19"32 and a Hardship'#ased "ederal Foan 9odification, with his documented assistance. 6. CUTPA V.93)4.97, In its thoroughly considered, (5'page Decision Hot to Dismiss 8supra>, the #ridgeport 0uperior %ourt in Marjorie Partch v. Wilton Meadows upholds all five of 4ppellant’s %ounts against Iilton 9eadows, including 4ppellant’s %K$34 claim, under %;0 < -)+'((+a et se4. Discovery for that claim is certain to eEpand the scope of its investigation.

$he tragic loss of the Defendants’ home would be the final and irreversible blow in this battle to bring her mother home if 9arDorie 3artch is not permitted to Intervene and participate in this "oreclosure proceeding.

IV. CONCLUSION #oth by 0tatute and by Rule, the admission of new parties into an action comes within both the Fetter of the Faw, and the broad discretion of the %ourt. "actors to be considered include whether the 3roposed Defendant’s participation will enable the %ourt to maAe a more complete determination of the issues. Ihile this is a somewhat subDective evalu' ation, in the present case, 4ppellant has provided ample evidentiary grounds for concern

26

regarding the "iduciary Issues and ?Knclean Hands@ Doctrine as eEemplified in Willow v. )rencom 1)+++2 B4pp.), )+-C6

A. S0697+ S4)*+)*+ 91 R0v.0<: A52,0 91 D.,6*04.97 4ppellant moves that in addition to its misapplication of the Faw regarding her relatively straightforward #laim to an .nterest, and her 4dmission by Right, as a JHecessary’ 3arty 1if not JIndispensable’2, the $rial %ourt also abused its discretion to eEclude 4ppellant from participating in this proceeding, in which she has established a demonstrable interest= and to which she can contribute significant and uni!ue evidence toward the administration of 7ustice, in preventing further InDustice against her beleaguered family, namely, the irreversible loss of their shared home. 1$here are two disabled adult children as well as 4ppellant.2 4s 4ppellant beseeched the $rial %ourt6 If she has not yet satisfied the above re!uirements to be included as an Intervening Defendant by Right, 4ppellant can only hope to 4ppeal to the Higher %ourt’s sense of 7ustice to eEercise its discretion, as a %ourt of !uity, in granting her 9otion to #e 9ade a 3arty Defendant, in her upcoming oral and written arguments, in light of the serious ethical considerations she is bringing to the attention of multiple %ourts. Ihile she eEpects to ultimately prevail in these various related concurrent litigations, 4ppellant’s pressing concern is to preserve the 3roperty itself for her mother’s rightful return to their shared home of more than -+ years. Defendant Dorothy 0. 3artch is already approved for 9"3, and the pending "oreclosure is a logistical impediment to her return to her beloved home.

27

Ho amount of monetary damages awarded could ever compensate this profound loss of the family home to which both Defendants are deeply attached. 4ny 9ortgage found to be valid in these proceedings could readily be reinstated with payments guaranteed by Defendant Dorothy 0. 3artch’s 0tate 3ension and 0ocial 0ecurity benefits= as well as &eterans #enefits from 9rs. 3artch’s deceased spouse= and reasonably anticipated awards for damages. $he 4ppellant respectfully prays that this 4ppellate %ourt of the 0tate of %onnecticut will find that she should be made a 3arty Defendant in the present "oreclosure proceeding P for reasons of !uity if not legal technicality, ineEpertly argued P in order to preserve her family’s homestead pending further ongoing litigations of the underlying issues.

Respectfully submitted,

3RL3L0 D D " HD4H$'433 FF4H$ 94R7LRI 34R$%H #T6 WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW 9arDorie 3artch 0elf'Represented c>o David &ita, Director of 0ocial 7ustice $he Knitarian %hurch in Iestport (+ Fyons 3lains Road Iestport, %$ +*55+ )+..,()../)5 > )+..))8.8)+/, E (mapXmarDoriepartch.com

28

29