· 3/9/2021

Derblom v. Archdiocese of Hartford

Citations

  • 203 Conn. App. 197

Syllabus

The plaintiffs, the executrix of the estate of R, several former students of a defunct Catholic school located in Madison that was the residual beneficiary of R's estate, the students' parents, and M Co., a corporation operating a private school that is purporting to be the successor to the defunct school, brought this action for relief against the defendant. After R died in 2013, the residuary of his estate was distributed to the defunct school in accordance with his will. In 2018, the defendant announced that, for financial reasons, it would be closing the defunct school and establishing a new school in Branford. Some of the parents of the students attending the defunct school then formed M Co., with the intent of establishing a new Catholic school in Madison. The plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that the residuary clause in R's will created a construc- tive trust for the benefit of the plaintiffs and that the defendant had a duty to convey the funds to M Co., as successor to the defunct school, or to return the funds to R's estate for distribution to his heirs. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that none of the plaintiffs had standing to enforce the charitable gift. The trial court granted the motion and rendered judgment thereon, from which the plaintiffs appealed to this court. Held that the trial court properly granted the defendant's motion to dismiss because the plaintiffs lacked standing: the trial court did not err in construing R's bequest as an absolute or outright gift to the defunct school instead of as an endowment that created a charitable trust benefitting the plaintiffs; the residuary clause of the will did not limit the expenditure of principal, restrict the manner in which the funds could be used, name any beneficiaries or a trustee, or include any other language evidencing an intent to form a trust or to exercise any future control over the residue of the estate; moreover, the trial court did not err in concluding that the

Judges: Lavine; Prescott; Alexander

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.