From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Department of Income Maintenance v. Watts

Supreme Court of Connecticut
May 30, 1989
211 Conn. 323 (Conn. 1989)

Summary

In Watts, the state agency that was the predecessor to social services appealed from a Probate Court decision approving "the disclaimer, by a conservator of an incapable person receiving state assistance, of his ward's interest in a testamentary trust, in view of the prohibition... against dispositions of the property of state aid recipients."

Summary of this case from In re Jessica M

Opinion

(13585)

The plaintiff department of income maintenance appealed to the trial court from an order of the Probate Court approving a disclaimer by the defendant conservator of his ward's interest in a certain testamentary trust. The department claimed that because the ward was a recipient of state assistance and because the conservator had not obtained the consent of the commissioner of income maintenance, disclaimer was barred by the statute (17-82j) prohibiting dispositions of the property of state aid recipients without the consent of the commissioner. The conservator claimed that, pursuant to the statute (45-300 [b]) applicable to disclaimers by guardians, the disclaimer related back to 1950, the year of the testator's death, and that because, at that time, 17-82j had not been enacted and the ward was not then receiving state aid, 17-82j was inapplicable. The trial court granted the conservator's motion for summary judgment and rendered judgment thereon, from which the department appealed. Held: 1. The possible adverse effect on the state's statutory (17-83e) right to seek reimbursement for funds disbursed on behalf of the ward was sufficient to establish aggrievement to confer on the department standing to appeal from the decision of the Probate Court. 2. The trial court erred in determining that the disclaimer was properly approved; disclaimers like the one in question here are barred by 17-82j where the person for whom the disclaimer is made is receiving state assistance.

Argued March 8, 1989

Decision released May 30, 1989

Appeal from an order of the Probate Court for the district of Clinton approving a disclaimer of the interest of the defendant's ward in a certain testamentary trust and ordering the establishment of a spendthrift trust for the benefit of that ward, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Middlesex, where the plaintiff and the defendant each filed a motion for summary judgment; the court, Cretella, J., denied the plaintiff's motion, granted the defendant's motion and rendered judgment thereon, from which the plaintiff appealed. Error; judgment directed.

Jacob J. Goldman, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were Clarine Nardi Riddle, acting attorney general, and Joseph I. Lieberman, former attorney general, for the appellant (plaintiff).

Keith Bradoc Gallant, for the appellee (defendant).


The issue in this case is whether the Probate Court may properly approve, pursuant to General Statutes 45-300 (b), the disclaimer, by a conservator of an incapable person receiving state assistance, of his ward's interest in a testamentary trust, in view of the prohibition in General Statutes (Rev. to 1987) 17-82j against dispositions of the property of state aid recipients.

General Statutes 45-300 (b) provides: "A guardian of the estate, conservator of the estate, executor, administrator or other personal representative of the estate of a minor, incapable person, or decedent, or the trustee of a testamentary trust, if such fiduciary deems it in the best interests of those interested in the estate of such person or such trust and not detrimental to the interests of such minor, incapable person, decedent's estate or such trust, with the approval of the probate court having jurisdiction over such minor's, incapable person's or decedent's estate or such trust, may disclaim on behalf of such estate or such trust within the same time and in the same manner as could a capable person."

Patricia Watts, ward of the defendant conservator, is a remainder beneficiary of a testamentary trust created under the will of her grandmother, who died in 1950. The life beneficiary of the trust, Patricia's father, died on July 20, 1985. The remaindermen, Patricia and her three brothers, were then each entitled to receive approximately $80,000 as one quarter of the corpus of the trust.

At the time of her father's death, Patricia, as a result of a traumatic brain injury, was residing in a group home for the retarded and handicapped and was being supported through federal Medicaid and state disability assistance. 42 U.S.C. § 1396 through 1396k; General Statutes (Rev. to 1987) 17-109, 17-111. She has received approximately $10,000 in Medicaid assistance and approximately $43,000 in disability assistance.

After the death of Patricia's father, the life tenant, her conservator applied to the Probate Court pursuant to General Statutes 45-300 (b) for permission to disclaim his ward's right to receive any portion of her interest as a remainderman. The conservator proposed that a spendthrift trust be created from those funds that Patricia would have received and that the proceeds from the spendthrift trust be used to supplement her medical care and personal needs. The Probate Court approved the disclaimer and permitted the establishment of such a spendthrift trust.

The state appealed to the Superior Court, claiming that the disclaimer is barred by 17-82j. Section 17-82j provides that, without the consent of the commissioner of income maintenance, one may not dispose of any property obtained while receiving public assistance payments. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The trial court noted that under 45-300 (e), "[a] disclaimer shall relate back for all purposes to the date of death of the decedent or of the donee." The court reasoned, therefore, that because, in 1950, 17-82j had not yet been enacted and the ward was not then receiving federal and state assistance, the common law of disclaimers, rather than 17-82j, should control, and the disclaimer should be approved. Accordingly, the court granted the conservator's motion for summary judgment. This appeal followed.

II

We first consider whether the state had standing to appeal from the decision of the Probate Court. General Statutes 45-288 provides that any person aggrieved by any order or decree of a Probate Court may appeal therefrom to the Superior Court. See Lenge v. Goldfarb, 169 Conn. 218, 220, 363 A.2d 110 (1975). In determining whether a party is aggrieved, the test is whether there is a possibility, as distinguished from a certainty, that some legally protected interest that he has in the estate has been adversely affected. Williams v. Houck, 143 Conn. 433, 438, 123 A.2d 177 (1956); O'Leary v. McGuinness, 140 Conn. 80, 83, 98 A.2d 660 (1953). The qualifying interest may be a direct pecuniary one, or it may consist of an injurious effect upon some legally protected right or status of the appellant. Maloney v. Taplin, 154 Conn. 247, 250, 224 A.2d 731 (1966). Thus, we examine first the nature of the state's interest in Patricia's estate, and second, the adverse effect on that interest of the Probate Court's decision. Baskin, 5 Appeal from Probate, 194 Conn. 635, 638, 484 A.2d 934 (1984); Hartford Kosher Caterers, Inc. v. Gazda, 165 Conn. 478, 485, 338 A.2d 497 (1973).

The conservator maintains that the state has not demonstrated that it has "sustained an injury to a specifically protected legal right," and, therefore, that it cannot establish aggrievement. The conservator's claim is wholly without merit, however, because it assumes that the state has no right to seek reimbursement for funds disbursed on behalf of the ward. Cf. Commissioner of Finance Control v. Whitfield, 35 Conn. Sup. 622, 624, 403 A.2d 709 (1978). General Statutes 17-83e, for example, furnishes the state with a mechanism for asserting such a right. Section 17-83e provides in part that "[i]f a beneficiary of aid under this chapter has or acquired property of any kind or interest in any property, estate or claim of any kind, the state of Connecticut shall have a claim . . . against such beneficiary for the full amount paid . . . to him or in his behalf under said chapter." The record discloses that if the disclaimer had been disallowed by the Probate Court, the ward would have received approximately $80,000, her one-fourth interest in the corpus of the trust. The state undoubtedly would have claimed an entitlement to some portion of that money and would have reassessed the ward's eligibility for assistance under title XIX and state disability guidelines. We need not determine, of course, whether the state would prevail on a claim brought pursuant to 17-83e, because, as stated earlier, the question for establishing aggrievement is whether there is some possibility that a protected interest has been adversely affected. Williams v. Houck, supra. Nonetheless, the apparent effect of the disclaimer in the present case is that the ward will not have any assets that can be reached for reimbursement, and the state's possible claim under 17-83e will be thwarted. We conclude, therefore, that the possible adverse effect on the state's right to seek reimbursement under 17-83e is sufficient to establish aggrievement in this case.

II

The state maintains that the conservator's attempt to disclaim is barred by General Statutes (Rev. to 1987) 17-82j, which provides in part: "If any person receiving an award . . . under this chapter . . . receives property, wages, income or resources of any kind, such person or beneficiary, within fifteen days after obtaining knowledge of or receiving such property, wages, income or resources, shall notify the commissioner thereof in writing. No such person or beneficiary shall sell, assign, transfer, encumber, or otherwise dispose of any property without the consent of the commissioner." The conservator, on the other hand, points out that, by the terms of 45-300 (e), "[a] disclaimer shall relate back for all purposes to the date of death of the decedent or of the donee." The conservator reasons, therefore, as did the trial court, that because, in 1950, 17-82j had not yet been enacted and the ward was not then receiving federal and state assistance, 17-82j is inapplicable and the disclaimer was properly approved by the Probate Court.

In resolving the conflict between these two statutes, We are guided by the principle of statutory construction that statutes in apparent conflict should be construed so as to achieve harmony between them. Groppo v. Jacks, 210 Conn. 277, 281, 554 A.2d 1061 (1989). The two statutes must be construed, if possible, so that both will be operative. State v. Tyson, 195 Conn. 326, 331, 487 A.2d 1091 (1985).

In State v. Murtha, 179 Conn. 463, 427 A.2d 807 (1980), this court had occasion to resolve the same conflict that is presented in this case. In Murtha, the state sought a judgment determining whether the defendant Vera Sullivan's disclaimer of her interest in the residue of her sister's estate was valid in light of the state's claims against Sullivan for the medical assistance that she had received or was receiving under title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1396 through 1396k. The state maintained that the disclaimer was barred by 17-82j. The defendant contended that the language of the statute, that a "disclaimer shall relate back for all purposes to the date of death of the decedent," should be given effect "so that Sullivan cannot be deemed to have received property [that] required her to notify the state under 17-82j." Id., 466.

In State v. Murtha, 179 Conn. 463, 427 A.2d 807 (1980), the defendant, who was receiving state assistance, was not an incapable person and was legally competent to execute a disclaimer, as she had done, without court approval. The state obtained a declaratory judgment that the disclaimer was, nevertheless, invalid because of the defendant's status as a state aid recipient whose eligibility was subject to reassessment. The issue before us in the present case is whether the Probate Court's approval of the conservator's proposed disclaimer should be affirmed. Because we conclude that such a disclaimer is barred by General Statutes 17-82j when the ward is receiving state assistance, we need not consider whether, in the absence of such a statutory restriction, the proposed disclaimer would otherwise satisfy the standards established by General Statutes 45-300 (b) for approval of such a disclaimer.

We held in Murtha, as we do in the present case, that the language of the disclaimer statute "must be considered as operative only when there is no bar to the disclaimer such as exists in 17-82j." Id., 467. Such a construction gives effect to both statutes because it first determines, pursuant to 17-82j, whether a valid disclaimer exists, and second, pursuant to 45-300 (e), it specifies the consequences of such a disclaimer, if it is valid. "The propriety of this construction of the two statutes is underscored by the enactment of 45-303 which lists a number of actions by a beneficiary [that] would serve to bar a right to disclaim. There is no intimation in 45-303 that the actions described [therein] form an exclusive list of the circumstances barring a disclaimer." Id., 467. Accordingly, we conclude that 17-82j provides a bar to disclaimers that is separate and distinct from those found in 45-303.

The conservator contends, however, that through the enactment of Public Acts 1981, No. 81-396, the legislature intended to overrule our holding in State v. Murtha, supra, by ushering in a new, more liberal, approach to disclaimers. The conservator emphasizes two aspects of the public act. First, he notes that the public act added the statement, now found in General Statutes 45-299 (a), that "[t]he provisions of this chapter shall be liberally construed to promote its underlying purpose and policy of readily permitting the disclaimer of interests." Second, he emphasizes that Public Acts 1981, No. 81-396 changed the treatment under General Statutes 45-312 of disclaimed interests for succession tax purposes.

With respect to the conservator's first claim, we agree that 45-299 (a) now expresses a liberal policy favoring disclaimers. That policy, however, does not require this court to construe 17-82j out of existence. Unless the statutory language expressly requires such a result, we cannot attribute to the General Assembly an intent to produce an unworkable statute. Schieffelin Co. v. Department of Liquor Control, 194 Conn. 165, 176, 479 A.2d 1191 (1984).

As to his second claim, we said in State v. Murtha, supra, 467, in further support of our holding that 45-303 is not an exclusive list of bars to disclaimers, that "45-312, another provision in chapter 798, `Disclaimer of Estate Property,' bars disclaimers from thwarting the collection of succession taxes." We assume, without deciding, that the amendment to 45-312 effectuated by Public Acts 1981, No. 81-396 mandates a different treatment of disclaimed interests for succession tax purposes. The conservator suggests that, as a result of this change, the foundation of our holding that 45-303 is not an exclusive list of the bars to disclaimers has been washed away. There is no evidence whatsoever, however, in either the language of Public Acts 1981, No. 81-396 or in its legislative history, that when the legislature amended 45-312 in 1981, it intended to alter our holding in State v. Murtha that 45-303 is not an exhaustive list of the circumstances that bar a disclaimer. Accordingly, we reaffirm our conclusion in State v. Murtha, supra, that 17-82j is an independent bar to disclaimers, and we hold that the Probate Court erred in approving the conservator's disclaimer in the present case.

General Statutes 17-83m provides in part that "[i]n the event that any person applying for or receiving assistance under this chapter has any right to rescind, revoke, avoid or otherwise set aside any assignment, transfer or other disposition of property, the state shall be subrogated to such right." We need not discuss the import of this provision, because General Statutes 17-82j disposes of the issue before us.


Summaries of

Department of Income Maintenance v. Watts

Supreme Court of Connecticut
May 30, 1989
211 Conn. 323 (Conn. 1989)

In Watts, the state agency that was the predecessor to social services appealed from a Probate Court decision approving "the disclaimer, by a conservator of an incapable person receiving state assistance, of his ward's interest in a testamentary trust, in view of the prohibition... against dispositions of the property of state aid recipients."

Summary of this case from In re Jessica M

noting principle of statutory construction "that statutes in apparent conflict should be construed so as to achieve harmony between them" and that statutes "must be construed, if possible, so that both will be operative"

Summary of this case from Miller's Pond v. Commissioner of Enviro. Protec

In Watts, the state agency that was the predecessor to the Department of Social Services appealed from a probate court decision approving "the disclaimer, by a conservator of an incapable person receiving state assistance, of his ward's interest in a testamentary trust, in view of the prohibition... against dispositions of the property of state aid recipients."

Summary of this case from In re Miriam A.

In Watts, the Probate Court for the district of Clinton had approved a disclaimer by the ward of the defendant conservator of a testamentary trust.

Summary of this case from In re Jessica M

In Department of Income Maintenance v. Watts, 211 Conn. 323, (1987), the supreme court reasoned that the possible adverse effect on the state's right to seek statutory reimbursement was sufficient to establish aggrievement.

Summary of this case from State v. Estate of Malone
Case details for

Department of Income Maintenance v. Watts

Case Details

Full title:DEPARTMENT OF INCOME MAINTENANCE v. DANIEL M. WATTS, CONSERVATOR (ESTATE…

Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut

Date published: May 30, 1989

Citations

211 Conn. 323 (Conn. 1989)
558 A.2d 998

Citing Cases

In re Jessica M

4 The Holding in Watts The department, in its brief, cites Dept. of Income Maintenance v. Watts, 211 Conn.…

State v. Estate of Malone

The general test for aggrievement is "whether there is a possibility, as distinguished from a certainty, that…