On May 3, 2010, the plaintiffs, Kristin Barber, Shayne Jacobson and Karl Jacobson, filed the present appeal from the order of the Probate Court dated April 13, 2010, pursuant to General Statutes §?45a–186. ? The following facts are undisputed. ? The plaintiffs are the children, and therefore heirs at law, of George H. Jacobson (the decedent). ? The defendant, Ann Dryer, was the wife of the decedent, the conservatrix of his estate and, prior to the decedent's death, possessed a durable power of attorney. ? In June 2002, certain sums of money were transferred from accounts solely in the name of the decedent into joint accounts between the decedent and the defendant (the first transfer). ? In June 2007, certain sums of money were transferred from a different joint account between the decedent and the defendant into an account solely in the name of the defendant (the second transfer). ? At some point subsequent to these transfers, the decedent died.
On April 6, 2009, the defendant submitted an accounting for her actions as conservatrix to the Probate Court. ? The defendant also submitted an accounting, dated July 10, 2009, of her actions as the decedent's attorney in fact. ? After a hearing, the Probate Court issued an order approving these two accountings on April 13, 2010. ? In this order, the Probate Court made the following factual findings: ?“The evidence [regarding the first transfer] is simple; ?it was done by the [decedent] himself and, without more evidence, it is his acts that control, and allow this transfer.” ? It continues: ?“As to [the second transfer] [t]his account was originally a joint account, and, if the children of the [decedent] were to prevail on this claim, they would, then be barred [by] reason of the original nature of the account.”
The plaintiffs' argues: ?(1) the probate court's decision pertaining to the first transfer was “entirely inconsistent” with a previous order issued by the Probate Court before the decedent's death and (2) that the Probate Court's decision pertaining to the second transfer was incorrect because the reason given by the defendant for this transfer, namely to shelter the decedent's assets from being used to pay for long term care, was simply pretext.1 ?These arguments shall be addressed in turn. More at the above URL