Page 37 - CLT112320
P. 37
CONNECTICUT OPINIONS NOVEMBER 23, 2020 ¦ 37
did not produce any evidence of any actual U.S. DISTRICT COURT
interference.
TRUSTS AND ESTATES CRIMINAL LAW • COURT ADMINISTRATION
Claim of Loss of Inheritance Unripe Defendant’s Speedy Trial Right Not
Until Estate Closed Violated by Suspension of Jury
CASE: D’Addario v. D’Addario Selection Due to COVID-19
COURT: Stamford/Norwalk J.D.
DOC. NO.: CV-17-6032325 CASE: United States v. Foley
COURT OPINION BY: Ozalis COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut
DATE: October 30, 2020 • PAGES: 22 DOC. NO.: 3:18-cr-333
COURT OPINION BY: Bryant
Plaintiff ’s and defendant’s mother passed DATE: November 11, 2020 • PAGES: 4
away, and plaintiff was appointed as executrix
of her mother’s estate by order of the Probate The district court granted the government’s mo-
Court. Until decedent’s death, she was a fifty tion to adjourn jury selection, finding that it could
percent beneficiary under her husband’s will, not presently impanel a jury without jeopardizing
a beneficiary of the Testamentary Trust, while the safety of all trial participants. Criminal charges
also being the sole beneficiary of a Marital were brought in the district federal court against
Trust. Defendants were appointed as execu- defendant Amber Foley. Twenty venirepersons
tors of the Francis’ Estate, a standing estate of were summoned to appear on the first day of jury
the plaintiff ’s and defendant’s father. Plaintiff selection. Only nine appeared. On the same day, the
alleged that over the previous 18 years defen- court was advised that a court security officer had
dant, as executor, treated the Francis’ Estate tested positive for COVID-19, necessitating evacu-
as a personal piggy bank, and transferred sig- ating the building for cleaning. The court later
nificant amounts to his personal business af- learned that the court clerk and another security of-
fairs, mismanaged the finances of the estate, ficer had also tested positive. The court concluded
failed to pay debts and taxes, and made undis- that it could not impanel a representative jury from
closed campaign contributions to the probate the 200 prospective jurors summoned without jeop-
judge for reelection (who recused himself once ardizing the safety of all trial participants, given
said contributions came to light). Plaintiff al- current escalating pandemic conditions and the
leged that mismanagement of the Francis’ Es- inability or reluctance of venirepersons to appear
tate directly impacted the D’Addario Estate, for in-person jury selection. The court found that a
and plaintiffs brought a seven-count com- continuance would not violate defendant’s speedy
plaint against defendants for breach of fidu- trial rights because trial had in fact commenced
ciary duty, conversion, statutory theft, unjust when the parties first received the venirepersons’
enrichment, conspiracy to breach fiduciary responses to jury questionnaires. Further, defen-
duties and abetting breach, and sought loss of dant was not incarcerated, but was instead residing
inheritance damages and collection expenses in a halfway house, at public expense. Under these
damages. Defendants moved to dismiss, ar- circumstances, the interests of justice in granting
guing lack of standing, unripeness, and that the continuance outweighed the interests of the
the collection expenses are barred pending ac- public and defendant in a speedy trial.
tion. The court found that the plaintiffs had SECURITIES LITIGATION
standing to bring a complaint against one of
the children’s trusts, and denied dismissal as
to her trust, however the plaintiff was not an Shareholder Derivative Plaintiffs Failed
executor or trustee of the Francis’ Estate and
therefore lacked standing to assert claims. The to Satisfy Pleading Requirements for
court noted that until the estate is closed, the Demand Futility
diminishment of interest in the estate of Fran-
cis was not yet ripe, and that a prior action CASE: Merholz v. McMahon
COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut
was pending in the Federal District Court. DOC. NO.: 3:20-cv-00557
The court granted in part and denied in part COURT OPINION BY: Bolden
the motion to dismiss. DATE: November 06, 2020 • PAGES: 27
CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune
