{"id":116537,"date":"2025-08-28T16:23:28","date_gmt":"2025-08-28T16:23:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/116537\/"},"modified":"2025-08-28T16:23:28","modified_gmt":"2025-08-28T16:23:28","slug":"good-will-how-a-controversial-court-ruling-changed-ct-estate-planning","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/116537\/","title":{"rendered":"Good Will? How a controversial court ruling changed CT estate planning"},"content":{"rendered":"

It\u2019s been almost three years since\u00a0Janet Moultis<\/a>\u00a0died, and her estate still hasn\u2019t been settled. She left behind a detailed will that explained in plain English<\/a> how she wanted her assets divvied up\u2014and that language is why things are up in the air.\u00a0<\/p>\n

A 2007 decision from the Connecticut<\/a> Supreme Court redefined what commonly used phrases surrounding survivorship mean. Now, three of Moultis\u2019 surviving siblings are fighting to deliver her last wishes.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The will, written in 1974, reads:<\/p>\n

\u201cShould my husband predecease me, then I direct that all my personal household items be devised and bequeathed to my dearly beloved parents\u2026\u00a0<\/p>\n

In the event that my dearly beloved parents MARS McCURRY and KATHLEEN McCURRY predecease me, then all of my personal household possessions\u2026 I give, devise and bequeath to my brothers and sisters who survive me\u2026 survivor take all.\u00a0<\/p>\n

In the event that my dearly beloved parents MARS and KATHLEEN McCURRY do not survive me, then I give, devise and bequeath one-half (1\/2) of my estate to my dearly beloved brothers and sisters who survive me, survivors take all.\u201d<\/p>\n

Her will goes on to state that the other half of her estate should go to a relative from her husband\u2019s side of the family.<\/p>\n

At the time it was written, the language meant that if her husband and her parents passed away before her, then all of her household possessions and half of whatever was left of her estate would be split among her surviving siblings\u2014and only them.<\/p>\n

Now, it means something else entirely.<\/p>\n

Three of Moultis\u2019 siblings died before her: Mars, who was named after their father, Diane and Brian. Mars and Diane had three children each, and Brian had one child.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The executors of Moultis\u2019 estate, which includes the attorney who helped Moultis write her will, are trying to argue that these seven nieces and nephews are entitled to the portion of her estate their parents would have received, had they still been alive.<\/p>\n

All of Moultis\u2019 four surviving siblings live in England, where Moultis was from. Three of them\u2014Alex McCurry, Susan Asplin and Kathleen Broad\u2014are fighting to preserve what they say is the intent of her will.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cShe wrote it quite deliberately, and she\u2019d mentioned it to us so many times that, because she hadn\u2019t got any children, she wanted her estate to come to us, her brothers and sisters,\u201d Asplin told Inside Investigator. \u201cAnd it just seems to me that the American law hasn\u2019t protected us.\u201d<\/p>\n

McCurry, Asplin and Broad argue that the wills specificity should have made this a simple legal matter. Instead, it has become years-long legal battle.\u00a0<\/p>\n

On one side of the ocean, in Connecticut, the attorney who worked on Moultis\u2019 will, Eugene Kimmel, and his co-executor Matthew Sponheimer, have been pushing to follow the letter of Connecticut\u2019s law, while overseeing Moultis\u2019 estate. On the other side of the ocean, from England, McCurry, Asplin and Broad have been scrambling for information and struggling to navigate a foreign legal system.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\nAn Age-Old Inheritance Problem\n<\/p>\n

In 1821, the Connecticut legislature passed an anti-lapse law. The statute, \u201cAn Act for the settlement of Estates, testate, intestate, and insolvent\u201d made it so \u201cWhenever a devisee or legatee in any last will and testament, being a child or a grandchild of the testator, shall die before the testator, and no provision shall be made for such contingency, the issue, if any there be, of such devisee or legatee, shall take the estate devised or bequeathed, as the devisee or the legatee would have done, had he or she survived the testator.\u201d<\/p>\n

Basically, if a beneficiary (legatee) who is named in a will dies before the owner of the estate (devisee\/testator) and the will has not been updated, then the portion of the will that was supposed to go to the beneficiary is passed to their legal heirs.\u00a0<\/p>\n

This anti-lapse statute is meant to prevent unintended disinheritance and has deep roots in American jurisprudence. The first anti-lapse statute in the country was written in Massachusetts<\/a> in 1783\u2014four years before the Constitutional Convention.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The Connecticut law has remained largely unchanged in the last 200 years, except for the addition of siblings and stepchildren as potential legatees.\u00a0<\/p>\n

But while the language has stayed the same, the interpretation of the phrase \u201cno provision shall be made for such contingency\u201d changed when the Connecticut Supreme Court<\/a> decided an estate dispute in 2007. That\u00a0case<\/a>,\u00a0Fred Ruotolo, et al v. Rieje Tietjen Executor (Estate of John N. Swanson), et al, or the \u201cRuotolo decision,\u201d reinterpreted the standards for survivorship clauses.<\/p>\n

In that case, Swanson wanted to leave one-half of his property to his stepdaughter, Hazel Brennan. His will stated that she would receive this portion of his estate \u201cif she survived<\/a>\u201d him, however, she died 17 days before him. The probate court judge who managed Swanson\u2019s will passed Brennan\u2019s portion of the will down to her heir, and then two other beneficiaries of the will\u2014Fred and Charlene Ruotolo\u2014challenged this decision.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cThe appellees contend that the inclusion of words of survivorship in a will constitutes a provision for such contingency, thereby rendering the antilapse statute inapplicable,\u201d the Appellate Court<\/a> wrote in its decision on the case. \u201cBecause the bequest in the present case contains the condition \u2018if she survives me,\u2019 they claim\u00a0\u00a7 45a\u2013441<\/a>\u00a0is inoperative. That simple and seemingly persuasive argument fails, however, on closer examination.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Appellate Court decided that, since Swanson did not name an alternative beneficiary to Brennan, her heir still received her portion of the estate. When making this decision, they took into account anti-lapse statutes in \u201csister states.\u201d<\/p>\n

In other words, in a post-Ruotolo legal landscape, writing a phrase like \u201cif she survives me,\u201d or, in the case of Moultis\u2019 will, \u201csurvivor take all\u201d no longer automatically cuts the legal heirs of a deceased beneficiary out of a will. Testators need to specify who will receive that portion of the will if the intended beneficiary predeceases them. If they don\u2019t, then that portion of the estate passes on to the intended beneficiary\u2019s heirs.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The Ruotolo decision was controversial.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe judges of the Appellate Court adopted a widely-criticized minority rule without indicating, and perhaps without even realizing, they were doing so. The result potentially impacts the future interpretation of countless existing estate planning documents and leaves the Connecticut bar struggling to respond,\u201d Quinnipiac University School of Law Professor Jeffrey Cooper\u00a0wrote<\/a>\u00a0in the 2007 Quinnipiac Probate Law Journal. \u201cIn addition, the opinion casts a wider pall by according too little respect to the traditional role of estate planning attorneys in communicating their clients\u2019 testamentary desires, while giving too much deference to the modern proposals reflected in the 1990 version of the Uniform Probate Code (hereinafter \u201cthe UPC\u201d). While the case most directly impacts Connecticut probate practice, it implicates broader themes concerning the interaction between traditional estate planning principles and modern probate legislation.\u201d<\/p>\n

The UPC is\u00a0a system of rules that was created to\u00a0standardize probate procedures<\/a>\u00a0across different states.\u00a0Only 18 states have fully adopted UPC, and Connecticut is not one of them. However, most states still use parts of it.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The judge presiding over Moultis\u2019 estate was initially willing to follow the spirit of her will. In a recording obtained by Inside Investigator, when Moultis\u2019 surviving siblings first met with the judge presiding over her estate, Asplin asked how many people were going to inherit the property in Moultis\u2019 house and her estate. The judge, Benjamin Gettinger, explicitly stated that it would be the four surviving siblings.<\/p>\n

But something changed after that. According to McCurry, the executors reached out to the surviving siblings and asked for the contact information of Mars\u2019s, Diane\u2019s and Brian\u2019s children.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Sometime around then, the executors allegedly wrote a letter to Gettinger, asking him to consider including these nieces and nephews in the estate, McCurry said. When Asplin asked for a copy of the letter, at first Kimmel told her that he had lost the copy, but when she pressed him, she says Kimmel said he would send one to her as soon as possible.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe\u2019re still waiting 31 months later for that letter,\u201d McCurry said in an interview in June. \u201cWe felt we had no alternative other than to consult or look for an attorney of our own.\u201d<\/p>\n

As of publication time, the letter still has not been shared with them.<\/p>\n

Kimmel and Sponheimer did not respond to multiple requests for an interview. However, the lawsuit that ensued after Moultis\u2019 siblings challenged the probate court shed light on some of their actions.<\/p>\n

At the time of the initial hearing, which happened on June 15, 2023, Kimmel was under the impression that Connecticut\u2019s Anti-Lapse Statute did not apply to the distribution of Moultis\u2019 personal household items, because she included the phrase \u201csurvivor take all,\u201d according to\u00a0an\u00a0Addendum to Memorandum<\/a>\u00a0of Law for Proposed Distribution states from the Milford-Orange District Court of Probate.<\/p>\n

However, Kimmel later reviewed the will and determined Moultis did not explicitly include language in her will that negated the anti-lapse statute.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cOthers offering an alternative analysis might argue that the Decedent included the additional language of \u201csurvivor take all\u201d for a specific purpose. However, the Executor believes an equally plausible explanation for its inclusion is that it is mere \u201cboiler plate\u201d language with no true meaning to negate the Connecticut Anti-Lapse Statute. The\u00a0Ruotolo\u00a0Court saw boilerplate language as a potential danger which runs counter to the purpose of the Antilapse statute: to avoid the harsh effects of unintended disinheritance,\u201d the Addendum states.\u00a0<\/p>\n

He also did not think that the \u201csurvivor take all\u201d was sufficient evidence that she intended to cut her nieces and nephews out of the will, in a large part because of how often it appeared in her will and was used redundantly in places.<\/p>\n

The Addendum goes on to quote a passage from the Ruotolo decision, which states, \u201cInclusion of words of survivorship provides neither objective evidence that a conversation about (Connecticut Anti-Lapse Statute) took place nor objective evidence that the testator considered seriously the possibility of non-survival or inquired about the meaning of expressions such as Lapsed Bequest and the protections of the anti lapse statute. Because such a survival provision often boiler-place form-book language, the testator may not understand such language could disinherit the line of descend headed by the deceased devisee.\u201d<\/p>\n

So, in Moultis\u2019 will, Kimmel came to the conclusion that \u201csince language like \u201csurvivor take all\u201d is often boiler plate, it is not objective evidence that the Decedent included it to avoid the Anti-Lapse Statute.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Ruotolo case gave two clear paths on how to avoid the anti-lapse statutes: \u201cunequivocally express the intent to avoid the anti lapse statute\u201d or give an alternative bequest. Moultis\u2014in her will that Kimmel helped write decades before the Ruotolo case\u2014did neither, so Kimmel determined that the anti-lapse statutes applied.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\nTrusting Estate Planners\n<\/p>\n

According to\u00a0vLex<\/a>, which is a legal database for lawyers that uses artificial intelligence to gather information, the\u00a0Appellate Court decision<\/a>\u00a0for\u00a0Ruotolo v. Tietjen\u00a0has been cited in 10 cases in the state. The Connecticut\u00a0Supreme Court decision<\/a>\u2014which upheld the Appellate Court\u2019s ruling\u2014has been cited in seven cases.\u00a0<\/p>\n

This is not a comprehensive view of the ruling\u2019s impact, however.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Most estates are managed outside of probate court, meaning individual executors could take the Ruotolo decision into account without there being a legal record of it. The database also does not include information about ongoing legal cases, like what is happening with Moultis\u2019 will. If a judge were to rule against the executors and cut Moultis\u2019 nieces and nephews out of her will, then the Ruotolo decision may not appear in any legal database, even though it played a huge role in the proceedings \u2013 and had a real human impact.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cBecause of all of this, we\u2019ve never had the opportunity to mourn my sister,\u201d Asplin said.\u00a0<\/p>\n

McCurry, Asplin and Broad are each in their 70s and living on pensions. Broad, who recently underwent several unsuccessful rounds of cancer treatments, is now on palliative care. And all three of them have children of their own.<\/p>\n

They have spent a combined $120,000 on lawyer fees.<\/p>\n

\u201cBecause it\u2019s divided between three of us, we\u2019ve been able to raid our savings,\u201d Asplin said. \u201cThey\u2019re vastly depleted now. What we put aside, we never expected to pay it on attorneys\u2019 fees.\u201d<\/p>\n

And their lawyers are not the only ones charging fees. McCurry, Asplin and Broad are not sure who is paying Kimmel and Sponheimer, but there is a provision in Moultis\u2019 will about reimbursement for legal and administrative fees.<\/p>\n

\u201cI direct that all my just debts, funeral and administration expenses be paid as soon after my decease as may be practical, except mortgages secured by real estate; and I further direct that all the estate, inheritance, legacy, succession and transfer taxes levied or assess upon or with respect to any property which is included as part of my gross estate for the purpose of such tax be paid, and said tax shall be paid out of my estate as an expense in the settlement thereof and shall not be prorated or apportioned among or charged against the respective devisees, legatees, beneficiaries, transferees or other recipients, nor charged against my property passing or which may have passed to any of them, and my Executor of Alternate Executor shall not be entitled to reimbursement for any portion of any such tax from any such person or recipient,\u201d Moultis\u2019 will states.\u00a0<\/p>\n

McCurry estimates that Moultis\u2019 estate is worth more than $1.1 million, between the cost of the house, which sold for $540,000, and the amount of money she set aside for retirement, which is around $600,000. Her retirement money is split unevenly between the siblings, with their youngest brother\u2014who spent a lot of time in the United States<\/a> during Moultis\u2019 last few months of life\u2014allocated almost three-fourths of it, and her two surviving sisters splitting the rest, according to McCurry. That is something that McCurry plans to contest in the future.<\/p>\n

In addition to her home and savings, Moultis had a lot of valuable jewelry and collected rare gold and silver coins. McCurry believes that those additional physical assets may be worth upwards of $600,000.<\/p>\n

The cost of maintaining Moultis\u2019 property will also be taken out of her estate, and McCurry and Asplin say they have no control over how that is managed. They can\u2019t access Moultis\u2019 house unless they have prior approval from her executors, which is standard practice in the state of Connecticut.<\/p>\n

\u201cEach month we get a breakdown of the costs from [our attorneys], and we\u2019ve been able to question different things on it. We haven\u2019t had one letter from Sponheimer or Kimmel to say (how the money is being spent) or an account for the last three months,\u201d Asplin said. \u201cNow we\u2019re in this situation, they\u2019re going to just give us a bill and say that\u2019s how much it is. We have a right to know what they have done with my sister\u2019s money and my sister\u2019s estate, which it really isn\u2019t Janet\u2019s anymore, it\u2019s ours.\u201d<\/p>\n

Asplin and McCurry believe that Sponheimer and Kimmel are spending money irresponsibly. For example, Moultis had \u201cbeloved\u201d cat, Mr. G. The executors were tasked with taking care of this cat, and, when he found out that the cat had fleas, Kimmel decided to fumigate the entire house, which cost an estimated $3,000, according to McCurry.<\/p>\n

\u201cNow we\u2019ve had animals all our lives, and they do occasionally get ticks and fleas. There\u2019s an instant cure on the market and has been for donkey\u2019s years [a long time]. For ($6 to $7), you treat the animal, and it\u2019s clean within days,\u201d McCurry said. \u201cWould he have spent that sort of money had it been his own money? No, I doubt it. I don\u2019t think the American public would wear that for a second. And it\u2019s that transparency, that the Connecticut\u00a0Probate Rules and Procedures<\/a>\u00a0(CPRP) says there, in black and white, just hasn\u2019t been applied to us.\u201d<\/p>\n

The siblings believe that they are being treated differently because they live in the United Kingdom<\/a>. They are not American citizens, but Janet was.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cThis whole legal system, is it there for show or does it have real meaning?\u201d McCurry said. \u201cNot just for us, over here, but every American citizen is entitled to protection from any abuse, whether it comes from within the legal system or without it. It should have protected us. We should never have run a bill of the amount we have had if CPRP had any real meaning in life.\u201d<\/p>\n

The judge that is presiding over Moultis\u2019 will is expected to have a judgment by the end of summer. If the case is not resolved by then, there is a trial date set for October.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Republish This Story<\/p>\n

\"Creative<\/a><\/p>\n

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"It\u2019s been almost three years since\u00a0Janet Moultis\u00a0died, and her estate still hasn\u2019t been settled. She left behind a…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":116538,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[39],"tags":[28,8609,75504,75505,12381,147,530,43223],"class_list":["post-116537","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-personal-finance","tag-business","tag-death","tag-estate-court","tag-estate-law","tag-estate-planning","tag-personal-finance","tag-personalfinance","tag-probate"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/116537","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=116537"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/116537\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/116538"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=116537"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=116537"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=116537"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}