DOCKET # FBT CV-12-6029435-S

: SUPERIOR COURT

MARJORIE PARTCH
Plaintiff

: J.D. OF FAIRFIELD
: AT BRIDGEPORT

v.

:

WILTON MEADOWS HEALTH CARE
CENTER CORPORATION
Defendant

:
:
: DECEMBER 5, 2014

REVISED COMPLAINT
Background Facts
1.

At all times mentioned herein the Defendant Wilton Meadows Healthcare Center
Corporation (hereinafter known as Wilton Meadows) was a Connecticut
Corporation with a principal place of business in Wilton, Connecticut.

2.

Dorothy S. Partch, a Conserved Person since July 27, 2010, was born
November 29, 1929.

3.

The Plaintiff Marjorie Partch is the daughter of Dorothy Partch.

4.

In 2004, the Plaintiff Marjorie Partch moved her residence from Vermont to the
Family Homestead in Connecticut to care for her mother, Dorothy Partch,
following a minor stroke.

5.

The Plaintiff Marjorie Partch continued to reside with and cared for her mother
Dorothy Partch in their shared home at 20 Devil’s Garden Road in Norwalk,
Connecticut, from 2004 until March of 2010, constituting a total of six years of
home care.

6.

This period of home care qualified Plaintiff for full ownership of the Family
Homestead under the Medicaid Caregiver’s Exception after only two years:
Federal Medicaid Rules Concerning the “Caregiver’s Exception” to the
Property Transfer Look-Back Period:
“Transfer of the home by the individual or his or her spouse to:
 A 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”:
42 U.S.C.A. § 1396p(c)(2)(A)(iv); U.P.M. § 3029 A.1.e.

9.

On February 3, 2005, Dorothy Partch conveyed to the Plaintiff Marjorie Partch
a Durable Power of Attorney Coupled With an Interest in the $1 Million Estate
(previously on file with this Court).

10.

This Durable Power of Attorney conferred an Interest in the (Inter-Vivos) Estate,
and specifically stated “this Power of Attorney SHALL NOT be affected by the
subsequent disability or incompetence of the principal.”

10.

On said date Dorothy Partch also designated Plaintiff Marjorie Partch as her
Health Care Representative and Attorney-in-Fact for Health Care Decisions.

11.

In both said Power of Attorney and Health Care Agency documents, she PreDesignated Marjorie Partch to be her Conservator, should one ever be required.

12.

Said Durable Power of Attorney conferred not only Principal Dorothy Partch’s
Agency upon Plaintiff, but also – by means of its explicit authorization to transfer
ownership of ALL assets and Property to Plaintiff herself, during the Principal’s
lifetime, as of February 3, 2005 – conferred upon Plaintiff a Direct Personal
INTEREST in the $1M Estate, specifically emphasizing the Family Homestead

2

located at 20 Devil’s Garden Road in Norwalk, Connecticut. Thus, Plaintiff’s
LEGAL INTEREST in the Estate (and Legal Right to its full Ownership) was
conveyed on February 3, 2005.
13.

This is to say, Plaintiff’s Agency “Coupled With an Interest,” in addition to all of
the Responsibilities and Authority of Agency established by means of these
instruments, also conveyed to Plaintiff: Real and / or Personal Rights and
Privileges, including Plaintiff’s Personal and / or Real Interest in the $1M Estate,
in particular the $450,000 Homestead Property remaining at issue.

14,

This Property was also Plaintiff’s primary home and residence for 40 years; and
sole residence for six years while providing full-time live-in care for her mother.

15.

There were additional financial assets in which the Plaintiff also held an Interest
– including but not limited to other Real Property and two substantial Individual
Retirement Accounts, listed in the Principal’s name, and naming Plaintiff as both
Power of Attorney With an Interest and Beneficiary – all of which were liquidated
in a precipitous 18-month Probate “spend-down” of more than $465,000 in
qualifying the Principal for Medicaid – which amount could have been properly
spent in providing adequate home care for the Principal; or in ANY WAY that the
Plaintiff deemed fit.

16.

On July 8, 2010, Defendant filed a false Application with the Court of Probate for
the Involuntary Conservatorship of Dorothy S. Partch stating that the
Respondent was not known to have executed a Durable Power of Attorney
(Coupled With an Interest); had not executed a Designation of Health Care

3

Representative; or Pre-Designated a Conservator should one ever be required
[Exhibit A].
17.

On June 2, 2011, Defendant Wilton Meadows filed a Collections Complaint
[FBT-CV-11-5029523-S, Please See File] against the Principal Dorothy S.
Partch, stating that its then-“resident” had a duty to Wilton Meadows to pay for
services based upon Plaintiff’s April 25, 2010, signatures on Wilton Meadows’
Admissions forms and Agreement, attached to Wilton Meadows’ Affidavit in this
suit [Item # 100.37] claiming Plaintiff’s Authority to sign for the Principal’s
admission to the facility as both Health Care Agent and Responsible Party
[previously on file with this Court, Exhibit B]. This action by the Defendant
presented a textbook occasion for Judicial Estoppel, had the Principal’s CourtAppointed Conservator been alert to the opportunity.

First Count (Negligence)
1.

The above-mentioned Background Facts are hereby incorporated into this First
Count.

2.

On April 7, 2010, acting as her Principal’s Health Care Representative and
Attorney-in-Fact, Plaintiff had the Patient in her care (her mother) transferred
from Norwalk Hospital to Wilton Meadows, following her acute medical
treatment for a massive stroke in March. At Plaintiff’s request, the Patient, who
was extremely weak but conscious, was receiving nutrition and hydration by
means of an abdominally implanted feeding-tube.

4

3.

On April 25, Wilton Meadows staff, while conducting commerce and / or trade as
a state-licensed health care facility, required Plaintiff to sign an “Admissions
Agreement” authorizing the facility’s treatment of Dorothy Partch as a stroke
Patient. This Agreement required a signature by not only an Agent of the
recipient of the Defendant’s health care, but also an additional signature by a
“Responsible Party.”

4.

Upon signing this Agreement, Plaintiff was required to produce documentation of
her Agency, and provided Wilton Meadows staff with copies of both relevant
documents: Her mother’s election of Plaintiff as her Health Care Representative,
and her mother’s Power of Attorney instrument, which clearly conveyed an
Interest in the $1M Estate to Plaintiff.

5.

Wilton Meadows staff had knowledge that Plaintiff had cared for Dorothy Partch
for many years in their shared home in Norwalk.

6.

As a health care facility, Wilton Meadows knew, or should have known, Federal
Medicaid Rules and Regulations, and how they affect rehabilitation Patients and
potential long-term care “residents,” and their families and assets; and the
Interests of the Plaintiff.

7.

In signing this Admissions Agreement in both capacities, as Attorney-in-Fact
and Responsible Party, Marjorie Partch also signed this Agreement in her
individual capacity, as the individually “Responsible Party.” As the doubly
responsible party then, Plaintiff agreed to accept the personal obligations and
liabilities of this additional relationship with Wilton Meadows, i.e.: The
Responsible Party was personally liable for any damages incurred by the

5

facility due to the Responsible Party's failure to fulfill the promises stipulated in
the Admissions Agreement. This Agreement included mutual promises.
8.

This Agreement bound both the Principal (Dorothy S. Partch) AND Plaintiff (as
the “Responsible Party”) to a “business relationship” with the Defendant. And
vice versa, the Defendant entered into a “business relationship” with both the
Patient (through her Agent, With an Interest), and separately and additionally,
with the Responsible Party as a distinct individual (with a Medicaid Exemption).

9.

Based upon this twofold relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant, Wilton
Meadows had a Duty of Care to Plaintiff, for example, to not misrepresent any
billing for their health care services; or to attach the Responsible Party’s
Property in order to secure payment for its services to the Patient / Principal.

10.

In addition, Wilton Meadows had a Duty to Plaintiff to refrain from filing a false
Application for Conservatorship (which is a Class D Felony), because it was
foreseeable to a person in Wilton Meadows’ position that filing a false
Application for Conservatorship, which denied Plaintiff’s designations (and
Coupled Interests), would interfere with Plaintiff’s Identity, Authority and
Interests in the $1M Estate (as conferred by the Durable Power of Attorney),
directly and / or indirectly causing harm and injury to Plaintiff’s Rights and
Interests in the following ways:
a. Plaintiff’s Constitutional Right to her close relationship with her mother;
b. Plaintiff’s Rights as conferred by Plaintiff’s Agency Coupled With an Interest;
c. Plaintiff’s Property Rights and Interests under the Federal Medicaid Law;

6

d. Plaintiff’s Promised Protections as the Responsible Party under the
Defendant’s “Admissions Agreement.”
11.

Because the Plaintiff had personally and legally entrusted her mother into the
Defendant’s medical care (rather than that of another institution); Plaintiff
therefore entrusted and involved her own Personal Interests – in her mutually
binding Admissions Agreement with the Defendant. Therefore, Defendant owed
Plaintiff a Duty of Care beyond that of any mere “family members” of its Patient,
“relatives” who had not signed the Principal in acting as her Agent With an
Interest; and / or who had not qualified as an Exempted Caregiver under
Medicaid Law for more than two years; and / or who had not bound themselves
to any Admissions Agreement as the Responsible Party.

12.

On July 8, 2010, Wilton Meadows breached this Duty of Care to Plaintiff when it
surreptitiously filed its false Application for the Principal’s Involuntary
Conservatorship with the Court of Probate, misrepresenting that the Principal
was not known to have executed a Power of Attorney With an Interest (in favor
of Plaintiff), or designated a Health Care Representative. This Breach of Duty
caused foreseeable cascading catastrophic events, directly and / or indirectly
causing immediate and far-reaching, ongoing harm to Plaintiff.

13.

As a foreseeable result of Wilton Meadows’ success in having their proposed
Conservator appointed in Plaintiff’s stead, this appointment directly and / or
indirectly deprived Plaintiff of, and / or otherwise interfered with:
a. Plaintiff’s Right to her extremely close relationship with her mother; and the
Right and Duty to direct her mother’s medical care (at home); and

7

b. Plaintiff’s Rights and Interests in the $1M Estate as conferred by the
(superseded) Power of Attorney; and / or
c. Plaintiff’s Rights as protected by the Medicaid Exemption; and / or
d. Plaintiff’s protected Property Interests as the Responsible Party (as conferred
by the Power of Attorney, and / or Medicaid Exemption).
14.

Furthermore, under Plaintiff’s Authority specifically conferred by the Durable
Power of Attorney instrument, Plaintiff was deprived of her proper Authority to
transfer the Estate’s, and specifically the Property’s, Title to her own name, prior
to inheritance, as an Inter-Vivos Gift; additional financial loss; and severe
emotional distress.

15.

In addition to the above-mentioned harms, as a result of this Appointment of the
Defendant’s proposed Conservator, the Plaintiff has had her extremely close
and ongoing relationship with her mother interfered with and damaged.

16.

This Interference with Plaintiff’s Interest the assets of the Estate was apart from
the confiscation of the Principal’s State Pension (as a retired schoolteacher),
which ultimately paid the Defendant’s $100,000+ bill for the unwanted privatepay institutional care forced upon the Patient by the Defendant against the
instructions of her Health Care Representative, which were ignored by both the
Defendant and its proposed Conservator.

17.

As a result of the appointment of the facility’s proposed Conservator, in
November 2010 (prior to the filing of the Estate Inventory), Plaintiff was evicted
from the Family Homestead that she, her mother, and her learning-disabled
sister had shared for many years; because the Conservator took legal action to

8

attempt to sell said Property, and brought an improper proceeding (represented
by another attorney also billing to the Estate) to improperly evict the Plaintiff
from the Family Homestead, Title to which she was rightfully and legally entitled
since at least 2006 under the Medicaid Exemption; and 2005 under the Durable
Power of Attorney With an Interest.
18.

As a result of this Appointment of the Defendant’s proposed Conservator, the
Plaintiff has had to engage in continued litigation since July 27, 2010, in order to
attempt to: (a) replace the existing Conservator(s) and have herself appointed in
accordance with her mother's wishes; (b) to have Dorothy Partch returned to
their home; (c) to stop the home from being sold and / or lost to the foreclosure
of a $135,000 mortgage against the home that was clearly unnecessary at the
time of the Conservatorship; and (d) to right this wrong against the entire Partch
Family.

Second Count (Intentional Misrepresentation)
1-18. Paragraphs One through Eighteen of the First Count are hereby restated as
Paragraphs One through Eighteen of this the Second Count as if repeated at length.
19.

In June 2010, Wilton Meadows, upon learning that Dorothy Partch's Medicare
Part A benefits would be expiring in July of 2010, recommended that the Health
Care Representative and Responsible Party take Dorothy Partch home and
additionally recommended the home care agency Nursing and Home Care in
Wilton, Connecticut, for assistance, in its Discharge Plan under preparation in
June 2010.

9

20.

At this time, Plaintiff requested that her mother remain at the facility for
approximately another 30 days, in order to allow Plaintiff time to prepare their
shared home for her mother’s return in a wheel chair.

21.

In turn, Defendant’s licensed social worker stated that the Patient could remain
at Wilton Meadows as long as Plaintiff could pay for private care for one month’s
time. Wilton Meadows’ social worker further represented that Wilton Meadows
required that Plaintiff demonstrate the ability to pay, in order for the Patient to
stay for the month; and that as part of this determination process, Wilton
Meadows required information on the entire family’s finances. This was a false
statement made as a statement of fact, and Wilton Meadows knew this
statement was false when Wilton Meadows made it, because Wilton Meadows
knew that it did not need information on the entire family’s finances in order to
demonstrate the ability to pay for one month, and Wilton Meadows knew that the
information it was intending to solicit from Plaintiff was not being solicited for its
stated purpose, but was being solicited for the purpose of assessing the status
of Plaintiff’s $1M Interest in the Estate, as conferred by the Power of Attorney;
and to determine whether Plaintiff’s Interest was severable.

22.

Wilton Meadows intentionally and deceptively made this misrepresentation in
order that Plaintiff would rely upon Defendant’s misrepresentation, and would
not take any necessary steps to protect her Interest, including but not limited to
exercising her duly conferred authority to transfer all the assets, including the
Family Homestead, into her own name.

10

23.

As Defendant intended, Plaintiff did in fact rely upon Defendant’s misrepresentation, and divulged the requested information regarding the family’s overall
finances, including information on the entire family’s assets (including Real
Property) and income (including benefits).

24.

Furthermore, due to Plaintiff’s reliance on Defendant’s misrepresentation,
Plaintiff did not act to immediately to protect her Interest, and did not exercise
her duly conferred authority to transfer all the assets, including the Family
Homestead, into her own name.

25.

As a result, Plaintiff was harmed, when Defendant, using the information
regarding the family’s overall finances obtained from Plaintiff, was able to
determine that Plaintiff had not transferred the assets of the Estate to herself
(Plaintiff); and therefore, Defendant was able to sever Plaintiff’s Interests in what
was properly PLAINTIFF’S ESTATE, as conferred by the (2005) Durable Power
of Attorney and / or the (2006) Medicaid Exemption.

26.

As a result of the Intentional Misrepresentation of the Defendant to the Plaintiff,
the Plaintiff has also suffered the following damages:
a. Interference in Plaintiff’s extremely close relationship with her mother;
b. Loss of residence as Plaintiff was evicted from the home she and Dorothy
Partch shared because the Defendant’s proposed and procured Conservator
took legal action to attempt to sell said home and brought a legal proceeding to
evict the Plaintiff;
c. Interference with Plaintiff’s Property Interest through her duly conferred
Authority to Transfer all of the assets in the Partch Estate – including the Family

11

Homestead, and additional Real Property – totaling approximately $1M, to
Plaintiff’s own name, for the financial protection of not only the Principal, Mrs.
Partch, but also for the Principal’s intended protection of the Principal’s adult
children, including Plaintiff, who was the Principal’s legal financial dependent;
and the Principal’s vulnerable learning-disabled daughter, who was in practical
terms financially dependent upon her mother’s support, and who had never left
home, at the age of 48 in 2010.
d. The necessity to attempt to mount a defense against (unnecessary)
foreclosure litigation endangering the Family Homestead;
e. Additional financial losses;
f. Severe emotional distress;
g. Actual damages.

Third Count (Negligent Misrepresentation)
1-25. Paragraphs One through Twenty-Five of the Second Count are hereby restated as
Paragraphs One through Twenty-Five of this the Third Count as if repeated at length.
26.

As a result, Plaintiff was harmed, when Defendant, using the information
regarding the family’s overall finances obtained from Plaintiff, was able to
determine that Plaintiff had not transferred the assets of the Estate to Plaintiff;
and therefore, Defendant was able to sever Plaintiff’s Interests in what was
properly PLAINTIFF’S ESTATE, as conferred by the (2005) Durable Power of
Attorney and /or the (2006) Medicaid Exemption.

12

27.

As a result of the Negligent Misrepresentation made by the Defendant as a
statement of fact to the Plaintiff, which the Defendant knew or should have known
was false, and upon which misrepresentation the Plaintiff reasonably relied, and
did not move to protect her Interests, Plaintiff has suffered the following damages:
a. Interference in Plaintiff’s extremely close relationship with her mother;
b. Loss of residence as Plaintiff was evicted from the home she and Dorothy
Partch shared because the Defendant’s proposed and procured Conservator
took legal action to attempt to sell said home and brought a legal proceeding to
evict the Plaintiff;
c. Interference with Plaintiff’s Property Interest through her duly conferred
Authority to Transfer all of the assets in the Partch Estate – including the Family
Homestead, and additional Real Property – totaling approximately $1M, to
Plaintiff’s own name, for the financial protection of not only the Principal, Mrs.
Partch, but also for the Principal’s intended protection of the Principal’s adult
children, including Plaintiff, who was the Principal’s legal financial dependent;
and the Principal’s vulnerable learning-disabled daughter, who was in practical
terms financially dependent upon her mother’s support, and who had never left
home, at the age of 48 in 2010.
d. The necessity to attempt to mount a defense against (unnecessary)
foreclosure litigation endangering the Family Homestead;
e. Additional financial losses;
f. Severe emotional distress;
g. Actual damages.

13

Fourth Count (CUTPA)
1-25. Paragraphs One through Twenty-Five of the Second Count are hereby restated
as Paragraphs One through Twenty-Five of this the Fourth Count as if repeated at
length.
26.

The Plaintiff is a person pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes 42-110(a).

27.

The Defendant is a person pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes 42-110(a).

28.

The Defendant engaged in unscrupulous, immoral, and deceptive acts that
constituted an Unfair and Deceptive Business Practice under Connecticut
General Statutes 42-110(b) and (g), when the Defendant filed its unwarranted
and false Application for Conservatorship, and furthermore misrepresented in
its false Application for Involuntary Conservatorship, the facts regarding the
Plaintiff’s designations under her mother’s Durable Power of Attorney Coupled
With an Interest; Designation of Health Care Agent; and Pre-Designation of
Conservator. Such deceptive acts violate the public policies of Connecticut, and
qualify as a Class D Felony under Connecticut General Statutes Section 45a648. As a result of these deceptive and unscrupulous actions by Defendant, the
Plaintiff suffered Ascertainable Loss and Actual Damages.

29.

For example, Plaintiff’s joint checking account with her mother (to which they
both made deposits), containing more than $16,000, was seized without a
hearing during the first 30 days of her mother’s “Temporary Conservatorship.”
This constituted not only an Ascertainable Loss, but also precluded Plaintiff from
retaining legal representation for her mother or herself for many many months,
thereby causing incalculable and irreparable harm as a result of Defendant’s

14

deceptive and unscrupulous actions, given the fact that there are no Public
Defenders in the Civil Court system.

29.

As a result of Defendant’s violation of Connecticut General Statute 42-110(b)
and (g) the Plaintiff has also suffered the following damages:
a. Interference in Plaintiff’s extremely close relationship with her mother;
b. Loss of residence as Plaintiff was evicted from the home she and Dorothy
Partch shared because the Defendant’s proposed and procured Conservator
took legal action to attempt to sell said home and brought a legal proceeding to
evict the Plaintiff;
c. Interference with Plaintiff’s Property Interest through her duly conferred
Authority to Transfer all of the assets in the Partch Estate – including the Family
Homestead, and additional Real Property – totaling approximately $1M, to
Plaintiff’s own name, for the financial protection of not only the Principal, Mrs.
Partch, but also for the Principal’s intended protection of the Principal’s adult
children, including Plaintiff, who was the Principal’s legal financial dependent;
and the Principal’s vulnerable learning-disabled daughter, who was in practical
terms financially dependent upon her mother’s support, and who had never left
home, at the age of 48 in 2010.
d. The necessity to attempt to mount a defense against (unnecessary)
foreclosure litigation endangering the Family Homestead;
e. Additional financial losses;
f. Actual damages.

15

30.

Pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes 42-110(g) the Plaintiff is entitled to
punitive damages and attorney's fees and costs.

Fifth Count (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)
1-25. Paragraphs One through Twenty-Five of the Second Count are hereby restated
as Paragraphs One through Twenty-Five this the Fifth Count as if repeated at length.
26.

The actions of the Defendant, including but not limited to its actions in making
the misrepresentations set forth herein, were extreme and outrageous.

27.

Defendant Wilton Meadows knew or should have known that Plaintiff’s
emotional distress would be likely to result from its unscrupulous, deceptive,
extreme, and outrageous actions, as follows, given the visibly close relationship
between its Patient, Dorothy S. Partch, and her daughter and hands-on
caregiver at home, Plaintiff Marjorie Partch, who was by her mother’s side
around the clock at Wilton Meadows. Wilton Meadows’ conduct in filing an
unnecessary and false Conservatorship Application; reversing the Discharge
Plan; and holding the Patient against her will, and that of Plaintiff, inflicted
foreseeable and severe emotional distress on Plaintiff.

28.

Furthermore, Defendant’s subsequent actions, particularly its constant efforts to
isolate the Patient, especially from the “prying eyes” of her Health Care
Representative (Plaintiff) and daughter, constituted extreme cruelty toward both
women, including Plaintiff. Plaintiff suffered many tearful, anguished nights,
woken by nightmares, worrying about her mother’s safety and well being given
her complete isolation from Plaintiff for weeks on end, and particularly after her
16

mother’s brutally dislocated shoulder in January 2011 at the hands of Wilton
Meadows staff, for example, following a six-week black-out of all communications
between mother and daughter, until the interventions of the State Ombudsman
reopened visitations and daily phone calls. Plaintiff’s own suffering over how
abandoned her mother must have felt, given the extremely close relationship
between the two, and Plaintiff’s prior devotion to her mother’s care – as well as
being deprived of the ability to continue to provide the loving care for her mother
that she always had – constituted Plaintiff’s own pain. Plaintiff’s mother has
understood her daughter’s suffering in addition to her own, even asking from time
to time: “Are YOU okay?” Both women have felt one another’s severe emotional
distress as their own, and Plaintiff’s was not merely the “second-hand” pain of a
“bystander,” but the pain of a directly harmed daughter and Caregiver as well.
29.

For the first 90 days of the Patient’s stay at Wilton Meadows, Plaintiff barely left
her side, so their closeness was evident and known. To dismiss Plaintiff’s own
anxiety and pain as “second-hand” suffering on behalf of her mother’s would miss
the point that Plaintiff would never have experienced her own terrible anguish
herself “but for” the Malicious, Intentionally Cruel Acts of Defendant, which were
intended to disrupt this visibly close relationship, in order to sever the relationship
between mother and daughter; Patient and Caregiver / Health Care
Representative; and Principal and Agent; as well as Plaintiff’s $1M Interest in the
Estate, which she had not yet transferred to herself. This severance was the
purpose, not an unforeseeable by-product, of Defendant’s deceptive and
unscrupulous actions.

17

29.

Being at home together was the quality of life and relationship that the two
women had planned for many years to have at the end of Plaintiff’s mother’s life:
To share that unique and precious time as much as possible, reading Emily
Dickinson together. For example, for Plaintiff to be able to continue to give her
mother twice-daily massages with lotion for the extremely delicate and dry skin
on her legs, was important to both women. It was painful and horrifying for
Plaintiff to see her mother’s skin covered in neglected and festering blisters and
ulcers, some of which were eventually diagnosed as carcinomas (due to
Plaintiff’s Complaints to the Department of Public Health), when Plaintiff would
have prevented this discomfort, as she always had before. Wilton Meadows’
initial response to Plaintiff’s concerns about these sores was to attempt to curtail
her visits altogether, with which the Ombudsman again intervened. This neglect
deprived both women of what should have been. Plaintiff was deprived of the
precious experience of providing loving daily care for her mother. Plaintiff’s pain
was certainly compounded by her mother’s pain, and her empathy and
compassion for her mother’s deprival was certainly part of the emotional
equation. That is what LOVE IS. But to deprive a devoted Caregiver of the
ability to protect and nurture one’s loved one, when one has vowed to do so, is
extreme cruelty toward the Caregiver. Plaintiff has been deprived of her own
priceless and irreplaceable experience of keeping her sacred vow to her mother,
who was also her lifelong best friend and spiritual mentor. Depriving this devoted
hands-on Caregiver Plaintiff of her irreplaceable and precious time with her
extremely close mother and the special experiences of continuing to care for her

18

in their shared home as she had done for six years, constituted severe
emotional cruelty toward both women, including Plaintiff.
30.

Given Plaintiff’s virtually round-the-clock vigilance by her mother’s side and
advocacy from April 7 to the end of June 2010 (and thereafter); and the
Defendant’s knowledge of Plaintiff’s many years of previous home care for her
mother – the Defendant knew or should have known that as a result of its
actions the Plaintiff would suffer severe emotional distress.

31.

As a result of the Defendant's relentless, ongoing, extreme and outrageous
actions, including Defendant’s transparently false and self-serving accusations
against the Plaintiff, subsequent to Defendant’s fraudulently procured
Conservatorship of Plaintiff’s mother, Plaintiff has suffered her own anguish and
severe emotional distress, for nearly five years. Defendant could have ceased
and desisted its persistent actions at any time, but did not. Plaintiff has
sacrificed countless stress-filled hours, weeks, and months, in those four and a
half years, in her own relentless efforts to liberate her mother and restore them
both to their proper home, including fighting the unnecessary foreclosure against
the Family Homestead, and applying for her now-destitute mother’s Medicaidsponsored home care, under the program The Money Follows the Person.

32.

Plaintiff has suffered the loss of not only the material value of the $1M in assets
in question, but irreplaceable time with her mother in the comfort of their own
beloved home; as well as the security, stability, peace of mind, and quality of life
that the Principal intended her devoted Caregiver, daughter, Agent and
Beneficiary to maintain for the rest of her own life.

19

33.

These qualities of life have been replaced by constant chaos, anxiety, worry,
instability, crisis, repeated loss of employment, poverty, stress, illness, repeated
moves of (substandard) residence, and the necessity to maintain constant and
stressful litigations in multiple Courts, as well as additional advocacy to redress
these wrongs and their resulting damages to Plaintiff, as well as her disabled
(and voiceless) mother and sister.

34.

Plaintiff’s eviction from the Family Homestead was in itself traumatizing; and the
loss of her permanent home of 40 years, and the constant threat of its sale,
compounded by the need for constant stressful litigation to protect it, have all
been additional sources of severe emotional distress and ongoing stress.

The Plaintiff Claims the Following Reliefs:
As a Remedy in Equity: To the extent that it is feasible in the present context:
Protective measures for the Plaintiff to secure Clear Title to the Family Homestead
located at 20 Devil’s Garden Road in Norwalk, Connecticut, including but not limited to
an Injunction and / or Restraining Order against its sale. (Plaintiff has not succeeded
in being recognized as a Necessary Party to the foreclosure proceeding, despite her
clear Claims to an Interest in the Property.)
1. Compensatory damages;
2. Actual damage;
3. Ascertainable loss;
4. Statutory damages;
20

5. Treble damages for intentional misrepresentation;
6. Any other equitable damages that are fair and just;
3. Punitive damages pursuant to Connecticut General Statute 42-110(g);
4. Attorney's fees pursuant to Connecticut General Statute 42-110(g).

21

DOCKET # FBT CV-12-6029435-S

: SUPERIOR COURT

MARJORIE PARTCH
Plaintiff

: J.D. OF FAIRFIELD
: AT BRIDGEPORT

v.

:

WILTON MEADOWS HEALTH CARE
CENTER CORPORATION
Defendant

:
:
: DECEMBER 5, 2014

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Revised Complaint was mailed, first class
mail, postage prepaid on this 5th day of December, 2014, to the following attorney of
record:
Angelo Maragos, Esq., # 411134
Goldman, Gruder & Woods
200 Connecticut Avenue
Norwalk, CT 06854
(203) 899-8900 (T)
(203) 899-8915 (F)
PLAINTIFF
MARJORIE PARTCH
BY: ______________________________
Marjorie Partch
Self-Represented
P.O. Box 776
Westport, CT 06881
203.912.3528
map@marjoriepartch.com

22