Connecticut

Warning: The following opinion is provided for purposes of discussion only. We have not Shepardized™ this opinion, and do not know the subsequent disposition of this case nor whether the effect of the opinion has been overruled or superceded by other law.

Fairfield Manor Health Care Center v. Marc Cowras et al.,
No. CV990170648S (Conn. 05/23/2003)

CV990170648S

SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD

May 23, 2003, Decided

May 23, 2003, Filed

NOTICE: [*1] THIS DECISION IS UNREPORTED AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO FURTHER APPELLATE REVIEW. COUNSEL IS CAUTIONED TO MAKE AN INDEPENDENT DETERMINATION OF THE STATUS OF THIS CASE.

DISPOSITION: Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the Estate of Theodore Cowras in the amount of $ 43,841.90 on the quantum meruit count. Judgment entered for the defendants on all other counts.

JUDGES: TAGGART D. ADAMS, SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE.

OPINIONBY: TAGGART D. ADAMS

OPINION: MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Fairfield Manor Health Care Center (Fairfield) brought suit against the defendants seeking a recovery for nursing home services rendered to the late Theodore Cowras. In the first three counts of the complaint Fairfield seeks to collect from the Estate of Theodore Cowras represented by his son, Marc Cowras, on theories of breach of contract, unjust enrichment and quantum meruit. In the fourth count Fairfield sues Marc Cowras individually for breach of a written Resident Admissions Agreement and in the fifth count, Fairfield has sued the estate and Theodore Cowras' daughter, Lorraine Tyrell, under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, General Statutes § 52-552a et seq.

The case was assigned to an Attorney Trial Referee [*2] (ATR) pursuant to Practice Book § 19-2A and a hearing on the merits was conducted before the ATR on October 19, 2000. The parties filed post-hearing briefs until December 2000. The ATR submitted a report and recommendations in April 2001, and the plaintiff objected to the report pursuant to Practice Book § 19-14. The objection was heard by the court on June 26, 2001.

The ATR's original report and recommendation concluded that Fairfield should prevail on its quantum meruit claim against the Estate in the amount of $ 43,841.90, but that it had not met its burden of proof that (1) Marc Cowras, individually, had breached the Resident Admission Agreement, or (2) there was a fraudulent transfer of real property from the Estate to Tyrell.

There has been considerable delay in this matter. The matter came before the court in early May 2001 and the plaintiff was given additional time to file a written objection. Subsequently, the objection came before another judge who ruled on it without knowing that this court had already heard oral argument. That ruling was vacated in August 2001. This court reviewed the ATR report and recommendations and the parties' submissions in the latter part of [*3] August 2001 and issued an order on September 6, 2001 referring that matter back to the ATR for the purpose of making such factual findings as he deemed appropriate on the issues set forth in General Statutes §§ 52-552e and 552f (the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act). Unfortunately, this order was not sent out to the parties or the ATR for several months. Thereafter, the ATR filed a Supplemental Report dated May 8, 2002. Again, for unknown reasons, the Supplemental Report was not brought to this court's attention until mid-April 2003.

The Supplemental Report contained the requested findings and repeated the recommendation that judgment be entered against the estate in the amount of $ 43,841.90 and for the defendants on all other counts. No objection to the Supplemental Report was filed.

Because of the long delay and the possibility that the issues had become moot, the court made inquiry of counsel as to the present status of the case and was informed that their files had been closed in the belief that judgment had been entered. However, as the above narrative indicates, until now there has been no final action taken on the ATR reports.

Background Facts

The [*4] following recitation of facts is drawn from the transcript of the trial proceeding before the ATR and exhibits in evidence. Theodore Cowras owned a residence at 2 Walter Avenue in Norwalk, Connecticut. (Tr. 11.) Following his wife's death in 1995 Theodore Cowras became increasingly ill and unable to care for himself. He was diagnosed with vascular dementia and venous insufficiency in his legs. (Ex. 5.) Also living at 2 Walter Avenue after Mrs. Cowras died were a son Marc Cowras and a step-daughter Lorraine Tyrell who provided a disputed degree of care to Theodore Cowras.

In July 1997, Theodore Cowras entered Fairfield and remained there until his death until March 1998. (Tr. 11.) While he was a resident-patient at Fairfield it is undisputed that the plaintiff provided him with over $ 50,000.00 in care and services. (Ex. A; Tr. 16.) Marc Cowras signed a Resident Admissions Agreement with Fairfield. (Ex. B.) Also in 1997 Marc Cowras was named conservator of his father, an incapable person, by the Norwalk Probate Court. (Ex. 1.) The stated reason for the appointment was that a foreclosure of the premises at 2 Walter Avenue had commenced and a default against Theodore Cowras had entered. [*5] (Id.)

On September 17, 1997 Marc Cowras, as conservator applied to the Probate Court to transfer 2 Walter Avenue to Lorraine Tyrell for one dollar and other consideration, and the sale was approved by the Probate Court on October 9, 1997. (Ex. 1.) The transfer of the house left Theodore Cowras without any assets. (Tr. 18.)

The Connecticut Department of Social Services (DSS) administers the federal-state Medicaid program, also known as "Title 19" (referring to Title XIX of the federal Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1396a). DSS paid for some, but not all, of the services rendered to Theodore Cowras by Fairfield leaving an undisputed, unpaid balance of $ 43,841.90. (Ex. A.)

The Role Of The Court

The role of the Superior Court in reviewing objections to a report of an attorney trial referee is well settled. Practice Book § 19-17 states that the court "shall render such judgment as the law requires upon the facts in the report."

[a] reviewing authority may not substitute its findings for those of the trier of the facts. This principle applies no matter whether the reviewing authority is the Supreme Court . . . the Appellate Court . . . or the [*6] Superior Court reviewing the findings of . . . attorney trial referees. See Practice Book § 433 [now § 19-17]. This has articulated that attorney trial referees and factfinders share the same action . . . whose determination of the facts is reviewable in accordance with well established procedures prior to the rendition of judgment by the court.

Meadows v. Higgins, 249 Conn. 155, 162, 733 A.2d 172 (1999) (quoting from Elgar v. Elgar, 238 Conn. 839, 679 A.2d 937 (1996)). (Quotation marks omitted.)

Discussion

The ATR's report found, based on the parties' agreement, that $ 43,841.90 was the reasonable value of Fairfield's services which remained unpaid and that judgment could enter against the Estate of Theodore Cowras in that amount.

The contested issues in this case are (1) whether Marc Cowras breached the Resident Admissions Agreement and (2) whether the transfer of 2 Walter Avenue was in violation of General Statutes §§ 52-552a et seq. The ATR found against the plaintiff and for the defendants on both issues.

The ATR found that Marc Cowras had taken steps to forestall the pending foreclosure by transferring [*7] his father's house to Tyrell in order to obtain refinancing. Marc Cowras and Tyrell provided affidavits to the effect that they had cared for Theodore Cowras for several years before he entered Fairfield. On this basis, they and the Probate Court concluded that Title 19 would reimburse Fairfield. Marc Cowras pursued the Title 19 application for funds in a vigorous manner.

From this the ATR concluded that Marc Cowras had not violated the Resident Admissions Agreement with Fairfield and that Fairfield had not proven its fraudulent transfer claim.

In this case, the ATR found the facts based on the testimony, exhibits and oral stipulations of counsel. From those facts the ATR made conclusions which followed legally and logically from the facts. This court approves and adopts those recommendations.

Conclusion

Judgment shall enter for the plaintiff against the Estate of Theodore Cowras in the amount of $ 43,841.90 on the quantum meruit count. Judgment shall enter for the defendants on all other counts.

TAGGART D. ADAMS

SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE

The legal opinions are a matter of public record (that's how we got them), and as such there can be no defamation for republishing them. Sometimes, however, legal opinions are reversed, vacated, or significantly modified, etc., and we do not discover this fact until somebody points it out to us. As we do not desire to publish inaccurate or outdated information, if a legal opinion has been reversed, vacated, or significantly modified, please advise us of this fact immediately, by fax to (877) 698-0678 or you may also send regular postal correspondence to Riser Adkisson LLP at 1827 Powers Ferry Road, Building One, Suite 200, Atlanta GA 30339.