Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** ANDREW HECHTMAN, ADMINISTRATOR (ESTATE OF ARLENE SAVITSKY) v. ALLAN SAVITSKY (AC 20072)
Landau, Dranginis and Dupont, Js. Argued January 18--officially released April 10, 2001 Counsel

Steven D. Jacobs, for the appellant (plaintiff). Edward Maum Sheehy, with whom, on the brief, was Michael R. Brandt, for the appellee (defendant).
Opinion

DUPONT, J. The plaintiff, Andrew Hechtman, is the executor1 of his mother's estate and appeals from that portion of the trial court's judgment that found that the defendant, Allan Savitsky, had not committed waste or negligence as a life tenant. The plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) determined that the defendant was not obligated to pay the interest due on a home equity loan that encumbered the property and (2) considered matters extrinsic to the will and outside the record. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The following facts are necessary to our resolution of

this appeal. The defendant married the testatrix, Arlene Savitsky, on August 11, 1985. They executed an antenuptial agreement (agreement) on August 5, 1985. The agreement specifically provided: ``[T]he Parties to this Agreement desire that neither of them shall be responsible for the debts of the other which might have accumulated to the time of signing of this Agreement, nor for any debts contracted hereafter unless both Parties have agreed to assume the same . . . .'' The agreement also provided that each party would have the ``full right to own, control and dispose of his or her separate property'' and ``each of the Parties is to have the full right to dispose of and sell any and all real or personal property now or hereafter owned by each of them . . . .'' During the marriage, the defendant moved into the testatrix's residence at 130 Sunburst Road in Bridgeport. Before and during the marriage, the residence at 130 Sunburst Road remained the sole property of the testatrix. After the testatrix's death, the defendant paid the taxes, insurance, utilities and maintenance expenses for the property. On May 25, 1995, the testatrix signed an equity credit line note with People's Bank in the amount of $50,000. She borrowed $31,000 against that credit line. She secured the note with a mortgage on the premises at 130 Sunburst Road. The note and the mortgage deed to the bank contain only the testatrix's signature as obligor, and the testatrix paid any and all interest payments on that obligation until her death. On April 28, 1997, the testatrix executed a will that revoked and extinguished any prior will or codicil. The will made the following devise of the real estate, improvements and furnishings at 130 Sunburst Road: ``I give and devise my house and real estate located at 130 Sunburst Road, Bridgeport, Connecticut, together with all of the furniture and furnishings located therein, to my son, ANDREW PAUL HECHTMAN, of Cheshire, Connecticut, subject to the right of my husband, ALLAN SAVITSKY, to live, alone, in the house for the rest of his life, and so long as he remains unmarried. My husband's right to live in the home shall terminate if he should remarry or if he should take in a live-in companion. I further direct that so long as my husband occupies said home, he shall be responsible for and pay all expenses relating to the use and maintenance of said house, which will include, but [are] not limited to, taxes, insurance, utilities and repairs.'' Paragraph eight of the will devised the ``rest, residue and remainder of [the] estate to [her] son, ANDREW PAUL HECHTMAN, of Cheshire, Connecticut, to be his absolutely.'' Paragraph nine specifically incorporated by reference the agreement that the parties entered into in August, 1985. The testatrix died on June 19, 1997. On November 17, 1997, the plaintiff instituted an

action against the defendant for conversion, negligence and waste. On July 21, 1999, the court rendered judgment in favor of the defendant.2 This appeal followed. We will provide additional facts as necessary. I We first must address the issue of mootness, which arose at oral argument and concerns a foreclosure action of the mortgage. The question is whether the withdrawal of the foreclosure action rendered the present case moot. Mootness implicates subject matter jurisdiction, which imposes a duty on the court to dismiss a case if the court can no longer grant practical relief to the parties. See Fiddelman v. Redmon, 59 Conn. App. 481, 483, 757 A.2d 671 (2000). The following facts relate to whether we have jurisdiction to hear the present case. In an independent cause of action dated March 4, 2000, PNC Bank, N.A. (bank), the assignee of People's Bank, sought strict foreclosure of the mortgage that the testatrix had executed to secure the home equity loan, claiming that the installments of principal and interest on the loan had not been paid.3 We take judicial notice of the pleadings in that action. See Lowe v. Lowe, 47 Conn. App. 354, 360, 704 A.2d 236 (1997). The bank named other lienors and the present parties as defendants. The bank sued the defendant in the present case, Savitsky, as a life tenant. There was no allegation, however, as there is in the present case filed by the plaintiff, Hechtman, that Savitsky had failed to make payments on the loan. On April 6, 2000, the plaintiff in the present case individually and as executor of the estate filed an answer and special defenses. The special defenses did not allege that Savitsky was liable for the payments. On May 17, 2000, the court defaulted Savitsky for failure to disclose a defense. On July 13, 2000, the bank moved for summary judgment against Hechtman, individually and as executor of the estate, as to liability only. Hechtman, individually and as executor, filed a memorandum in opposition to the bank's motion for summary judgment and in support of his own motion for summary judgment against the bank. That memorandum alleged that he was not individually liable, nor was the estate liable, for payment of the loan's finance charges. According to the opposition memorandum, Savitsky, as life tenant, was liable. On October 13, 2000, Savitsky filed a four count cross claim against Hechtman in the foreclosure action, alleging that Hechtman, as an individual, had committed waste by failing to make payments of principal and interest on the loan. The cross claim references the trial court's judgment in the present case, which held that Savitsky was not obligated to pay interest or principal on the loan. The cross claim also alleged that Hecht-

man, as administrator of the estate, had breached a fiduciary duty by failing to make payments on the loan; that Hechtman, as an individual, had violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, General Statutes

Download Hechtman v. Savitsky.pdf

Connecticut Law