A probate bill passed through both the House of Representatives and Senate on Tuesday, May 5. The bill, SB 400,
or “An Act Concerning Probate Court Operations,” changes procedures for
involuntary conservatorship hearings and expands the training
requirements for new judges.
A conservatorship is a legal process in which a person is appointed to manage the financial or personal affairs of an adult.
The bill specifies that every party involved in a hearing for an
involuntary conservatorship must be given at least ten days’ notice
before a hearing.
Judge Beverly Streit, the probate court administrator for Connecticut, sent a written testimony for a public hearing.
“We appreciate the support of the Committee in clarifying the timing
for conservatorship hearings,” Streit wrote. “The language of the bill
seeks to more plainly state that notice of the hearing is sent to the
parties not less than ten days before the hearing, and the hearing
itself must be held not more than thirty days after receipt of the
petition. In practice, this has always been a consistent application of
the statute. The clarification proposed provides the same consistent
approach to articulating the timing of notice and hearings.”
In her testimony, Streit proposed a minor tweak to language for
technical purposes—which was made—but otherwise supported the bill. Her
proposed change was implemented in the final version of the bill.
Usually, an adult enters a conservatorship if they are incapable of
handling their own affairs, either due to age or various medical
conditions. In many cases, a person enters a conservatorship
voluntarily.
Most of the time, conservatorships are managed by family members.
However, there are cases when a probate judge will appoint an attorney
to manage a person’s affairs if they have no adult around them, or if
they determine that the person’s current conservator should not have
that responsibility.
For example, Inside Investigator found one case in the Norwalk
Probate Court District where a man voluntarily entered a conservatorship
and asked that Rachel Menti, a woman he was not related to, be his
conservator. Later, he was admitted to a hospital and Menti allegedly
lied and told staff that she was his daughter. After that, the man’s
actual relatives filed a complaint with the probate court, and she was
removed as his conservator. Then the judge assigned Kristin Exner to be
his conservator.
Exner herself has a history
of alleged misconduct, including selling a house owned by one of her
conservatees to a man with whom she co-owned a real estate company. This
transaction came to light in a lawsuit against her.
SB 400 would also allow probate court administrators to audit how a
conservator manages the financial affairs of an estate. Previously, they
were only able to monitor a conservator’s account.
The bill also adds a mentorship component to training for new judges,
allows someone who is under a federal firearms disability restriction
and lives outside Connecticut to petition the state to regain their
firearm rights if they were removed because of an in-state adjudication
or commitment, expands the jurisdiction of probate courts to include
name changes for minors, and requires appeals of matters concerning a
minor’s guardian or emancipation to be filed in the Superior Court for
Juvenile Matters.
The rest of the bill proposes minor, often technical, changes to the
operation of probate courts. It also dissolves a working group that was
established by a 2025 law to make recommendations on guardian
proceedings, policies, and procedures.
Only five members of the House of Representatives were absent or did
not vote for the bill. Other than them, every state legislator voted in
favor of the bill. If it is signed by Gov. Ned Lamont, every part of the
bill will take effect on October 1, 2026, except for the firearms
disability provision, which will be implemented on January 1, 2027.
A court-appointed conservator improperly billed the state’s probate
courts for representing people who had died and improperly collected
certain fees, a state investigation determined.
Lisa Foy, a Canton attorney who worked in probate courts from Torrington
to Niantic, forfeited $20,859 in fees that the state had overpaid her,
after the investigation found this amount was over-billed and
incorrectly billed, according to an agreement with the state. A review
of Foy’s billing practices “revealed a pattern of billing for matters in
which the protected persons have been deceased,” read a July 11 letter
addressed to her. There were also instances in which she was collecting
the full fee when she was not entitled because she had been appointed as
conservator with one or more other people, according to Sept. 30
settlement with the Probate Court Administrator.
Foy, who began resigning from conservatorships last year while the state
investigation was underway, expressed remorse over her actions.
“It
is hard to imagine that my billing errors were errors but as hard as it
is to imagine, I made mistakes,” Foy said in a statement to CT Insider
last month. “There were many contributing factors but the only one that
matters is that I failed to sufficiently review my bills to avoid the
mistakes. I deeply regret and I am sorry that this happened.”
Foy
said as soon as the mistakes “were brought to my attention, I engaged
in a long and thorough review cooperatively, with the Probate Court
Administration and immediately paid back all the funds that were paid to
me in error.”
State
records show Foy has earned $911,234 since 2016 for her work as a
probate court conservator. Like many state-appointed conservators, Foy
often represented clients unable to assist themselves or afford private
representation and settled their estates after they died.
A
letter from the Probate Court Administrator’s office shows the state
last summer informed the Auditors of Public Accounts of its
investigation into Foy’s billing, which began in April 2025.
“In
reviewing the matters in which Attorney Foy was appointed as
conservator, PCA determined that Attorney Foy billed, and was paid, for
services provided to deceased protected person and billed at the full
contract conservator rate when she was entitled to only one-half as
there was another professional co-conservator,” Beverly Streit, the
probate court administrator, told auditors in a July 15, 2025 letter.
“Attorney
Foy is working cooperatively with this office to resolve the billing
and overpayment issues,” Streit added. “We will keep you informed as to
any such resolution.”
In response to questions from CT Insider, the probate court administrator’s office declined specific comment.
“Please
know that this office’s statutory function is to support the operations
of the Connecticut Probate Courts and to develop legislation,
regulations, and policies to improve the Probate Court system,” the
administrator’s office said in a statement. “We are unable to provide
comment on matters pending before the courts.”
Conservator pay
Court-appointed
conservators often make far less than private attorneys performing
similar duties. The basic fee for a state conservator is set at $52 an
hour, state records show, and there are caps on the amounts they can
earn over certain time periods. As a result, court-appointed
conservators often take on a large volume of clients to offset the
earning restrictions.
For
example, a conservator representing a person in a nursing home can earn
no more than $600 over the first six-month period and $300 annually
after that initial period. If a client has a psychiatric disability, the
pay increases to $1,200 for the first six months of representation and
then $1,200 annually after that initial period.
If
a client does not reside in a nursing home or similar facility, the
conservator can make no more than $1,200 during the first six months of
representation and $600 annually after that initial period.
Resignation
A
review of probate court records showed Foy began resigning from her
conservatorships while the state investigation into her billing was
underway, a fact Foy confirmed.
“In
May of 2025, I began resigning from my files with the Probate Courts as
the system could not pay me for services rendered while the review was
ongoing and they couldn't guarantee when I would be entitled to and paid
future payments for work that had been performed,” Foy explained in a
statement to CT Insider.
“As
a result, I pursued other opportunities,” Foy noted. “I was asked by
the Probate Court Administration and the Probate Courts to remain as
conservator on my files and to accept new files. Instead, I made the
decision that this chapter in my professional life had regrettably come
to an end.”
Foy
added “as soon as the mistakes were brought to my attention, I engaged
in a long and thorough review cooperatively, with the Probate Court
Administration and immediately paid back all the funds that were paid to
me in error.”
Court
records show Foy often told the various courts where she was resigning
that she had taken a new job or employment. Some of the courts where Foy
represented clients included Torrington, Tolland, Hartford, Niantic,
Mansfield, Litchfield, Bristol and Ellington.
Paper Trail
The
letters from the probate court administrator show an evolving process
that resulted in varying estimates for Foy’s overbilling, negotiations
over invoices and acknowledgement by the state that some suspect
invoices were legitimate. The final agreement between Foy and the state
covered the period between December 2017 and December 2024, the
settlement said.
In
a July 11, 2025 letter to Foy, the probate court’s chief counsel,
Heather Dostaler, listed the allegations in considerable detail. The
letter also indicated Foy was actively auditing her own billing and had
found additional examples of discrepancies.
“In
the majority of these matters you failed to file any conservator
reports, which are required to be submitted annually, and did not file
an inventory or financial report unless faced with removal by the
court,” Dostaler noted.
“In
addition, there appears to be a pattern where you failed to timely
notify the courts of the death of the conserved person, sometimes for
years, and there were fee waivers signed under penalty of false
statement on which you reported income after the person's death,”
Dostaler said.
At
the time of the letter, Foy was told she owed just over $16,000 to the
state. That figure later grew to nearly $21,000, including deductions
based on documents Foy submitted which the state agreed showed that
certain suspected billing was proper.
An Aug. 20, 2025 letter from Dostaler established the final cost to Foy for the overbilling and how the matter would be settled.
“Based
upon the foregoing review, we have determined that the total amount of
$20,859.00 has been improperly paid to you as a result of your over- or
incorrect billing,” Dostaler wrote.
The money, Dostaler explained, would be deducted from a scheduled payment to Foy.
Mary-Ann
Langton, foreground, with her aid Patty Ellis, speak to Governor Ned
Lamont staffer Abigail Cotto after members of ADAPT CT enter the
governor’s office wanting to speak to the governor, they were told he
was not in, on Thursday, March 5, 2026, at the Capitol in Hartford. The
advocates returned twice more before being able to secure a meeting with
Lamont.
Jim Michaud/Hearst Connecticut Media
After months of advocacy, Gov. Ned Lamont is backing off a proposal that would’ve cut funding to a community-based Medicaid program serving more than 7,200 residents.
Community First Choice,
or CFC, is a longstanding entitlement program that allows enrollees to
directly hire personal care aides to support their day-to-day needs
while living in the community or at home.
As
part of his budget proposal, Lamont sought to end funding for the
program, arguing that rising enrollment was also driving up the costs to
sustain it. The program also faces administrative challenges,
particularly payroll-related issues. If it had been finalized, all of
the current participants would have been moved to one of the state’s
capped Medicaid waivers offering similar services.
However,
advocates and community members have instead argued that the waivers
lack sufficient slots and funding to meet the growing demand. As a
result, folks may end up on years-long waiting lists or be pushed into
already-stretched institutional care systems.
Lamont
backed off the CFC proposal following a meeting with several disability
rights advocates in early April. The state’s Appropriation Committee
also rejected the proposal when advancing its budget forward.
Connecticut
Public first reported that none of the original proposal is expected to
be included in the final budget set to be approved in the coming weeks.
Here are other major proposals on disability rights to keep an eye on as the 2026 legislative season winds down:
HUSKY C
Eliminating
the asset limits on the state’s Medicaid plan for people with
disabilities is back on the lawmakers’ docket, marking the third year
advocates have pushed to address what they describe as restrictive and
discriminatory eligibility.
HUSKY
offers coverage based on specific categories, such as income, age,
disability, and more. People with disabilities, however, are only
categorically eligible for HUSKY C, which covers residents who are
disabled, blind and elderly. It has the lowest income limit of any of
the state’s programs — set at $1,370 — and asset limits of $1,600 and
$2,400 for singles and couples.
The latest proposal, if passed, would increase HUSKY C’s asset limits
for an unmarried person to $5,000 and a married couple to $7,500. It
would also require DSS to report asset data to the Human Services
committee, which Sen. Matt Lesser said has been a challenge over the
years and may yield a more accurate fiscal impact.
As of April 14, the proposal was referred to the state Appropriations Committee by the House.
Community
members and advocates have asked lawmakers to increase income and asset
limits, yet have struggled to secure any finalization. In April 2025,
Disability Rights Connecticut and the Medical-Legal Partnership Clinic filed a civil rights lawsuit on
behalf of two residents arguing that the strict eligibility
requirements violate the state Constitution's equal protection clause.
But
a lawsuit can take years and would be resolved if the issue were
addressed through legislation, said Sheldon Toubman, a litigation
attorney at Disability Rights Connecticut.
And
with incoming changes to the federal Medicaid program, such as work
requirements, more people may lose their coverage and fall through the
cracks in the insurance system over the next few years.
Some
residents will be directly affected by eligibility changes and funding
cuts and may see coverage changes as early as next year. Others will
drop off Medicaid, despite their eligibility, because they can't keep up
with all the requirements, like Karen Healy.
Healy
began struggling with severe mental health issues, like PTSD, ADHD, and
borderline personality disorder, at 16 years old. In 1989, she entered
institutionalized care and spent more than 24 years receiving treatment
before being discharged in 2014.
She
currently lives on her own in Hartford with 24/7 support and has been
working as a ShopRite bagger for the last 3 years. Healy’s mental health
care and medications are currently covered under MED-Connect, a state program that offers Medicaid coverage to employees with disabilities.
Having
a steady job, Healy said, has helped build her confidence over the
years and has slowly helped her build out her life in the community
after so many years of institutionalized care.
Even
just working 20 hours can be a lot on her body, Healy said, noting it
impacts her sleep, mental health and leads to orthopedic issue
flare-ups. However, starting Jan. 1, 2027, Medicaid enrollees will have
to prove they’ve worked, volunteered or attended school for at least 80 hours a month to keep their coverage.
“I would have to work, but my body would be shot,” Healy said. “It wouldn't be right. It wouldn’t be fair.”
If
she were to quit her job and rely on disability payments, Healy said
her income would be too high, by a few hundred dollars, to qualify for
HUSKY C, which is why she’s advocating for the increased asset limits.
Healy
recalled once trying to meet a roughly $5,000 medical spend-down
requirement when she didn’t have a job to meet HUSKY eligibility. Since
then, she said she believes the amount has likely increased, making it
more difficult to meet the spend-down requirement.
“If
I don't have HUSKY C, all my meds would come out of my own pocket…my
meds are what keep me out of psychiatric hospitals. So, I take them like
if I were a diabetic and depended on my insulin,” Healy said. “I will
always take my meds, no matter what. And if I had to, I would have to
pay for all of them, and I might not have any money for myself.”
Wheelchair repair
Wheelchair repairs are once again on the lawmakers' proposed bill docket.
Two
private equity companies — Numotion and National Seating & Mobility
— provide most of the repair services in Connecticut and nationwide.
In
2024, Lamont signed a multifaceted law aimed at reducing the
months-long wait wheelchair users faced when trying to repair their
chairs. This included a 10-business-day deadline for wheelchair
technicians to fix equipment, eliminating insurance prior authorization
for repairs and creating a Complex Rehabilitation Technology and
Wheelchair Repair Advisory Council to implement the law.
Although
there has been some improvement, Joe Shortt, an advocate with the
Connecticut Wheelchair Repair Coalition, said Numotion “actively
deceives” customers by not informing them that repairs can now be
offered at home, instead forcing people to come into the store for
services.
The proposed legislation would require customer notification about current standards,
available at-home service options and how to file a complaint with the
state if the work is not completed properly. It’d also require
wheelchair dealers to submit monthly reports and provide data to the
Department of Social Services and the state’s Complex Rehabilitation
Technology and Wheelchair Repair Advisory Council.
“Unfortunately,
there are still some repairs taking months, such as Gary, who's been
waiting, who's been stuck in the same uncomfortable position for seven
months because his power wheelchair needs a tilt actuator repair. Or
Mary, who's been waiting months for her foot plate to get repaired,
which resulted in additional injuries to her feet,” Shortt said at a
press conference in March. “We shouldn't have to be subjected to
preventable injuries because of long repair times.”
Although
the proposal made it out of committee and is headed for further debate
in the Senate with bipartisan support, state Rep. Jay Case, who voted
against it, worries that it’s an issue that needs further input from
other committees to fully address.
“I
think we made some good movement on it,” he said in March when the bill
was voted out of the Human Services Committee. “I just think we have to
be careful. We need to make sure that they're getting what they need,
and we're doing what's within our purview.”
Supported decisions
There’s
also a proposal that looks to require businesses, government agencies,
organizations, medical providers, and educational institutions to
recognize a supported decision-making agreement.
Unlike
guardianship, support decision-making is a process that lets
individuals with disabilities maintain legal, self-determined control
with the help of a trusted support system, such as friends or family.
Around
30 states recognize supported decision making, but Connecticut has yet
to catch up, said Molly Cole, executive director of the CT State
Independent Living Council. Cole said the bill would not eliminate
guardianship as an option but would create an opportunity for those who
can make their own decisions to do so.
“If
I needed to buy a car, I would be asking somebody to tell me about a
car. That's supported decision making,” she said at a press conference
in March. “All of us do it every day, and yet we deny that right to so
many people with disabilities.”
The
proposed bill was developed in collaboration with disability advocates
and bipartisan lawmakers over the course of 10 months, but it’s been an
issue that they’ve been working to address since 2023, said state Rep.
Lucy Dathan. She explained that minors turning 18 years old and
transitioning out of pediatric support systems would especially benefit
from having a new avenue for decision-making.
In
addition, the proposal seeks to establish a program through the
Department of Aging and Disability Services to provide information and
resources on supported decision-making agreements and to facilitate
their creation, execution, and termination.
As
of April 14, the proposal has cleared the Human Services Committee and
is headed to the House for further debate, with bipartisan support.
State-contracted attorney Kristan Exner, under scrutiny for
selling homes of people she served as a fiduciary for to her business
partner, is facing an investigation by a Connecticut grievance
panel. The Statewide Bar Counsel's office is reviewing her conduct as a
conservator and court-appointed fiduciary, according to an attorney for
Exner.
Exner sold two homes to her business partner, Joseph Garin, while
serving as a professional fiduciary without disclosing the business
relationship to the probate court, records show. Both homes were re-sold
by Garin within months, in one case for more than two times what he
purchased it for, according to property records. Garin declined to
comment for this story.
A judge on one of the cases referred her conduct to the state’s bar committee after the new information came to light regarding
Exner's relationship to Garin in the home sale of Milford resident
Barbara Tobin. An attorney for Exner confirmed in a probate court
hearing last month that a panel was formally investigating the matter as
part of the Statewide Bar Counsel's review process.
The judge
referred the conduct after an attorney for Robert Tobin, the son of
Barbara Tobin, put forward a motion to have Exner disbarred for
potentially breaking conflict of interest and perjury rules. The Tobins
declined to comment for this story.
“There is no
doubt that the very serious nature of the allegations raised in Robert
Tobin’s amended motion for permanent disbarment of Kristan Exner need to
be addressed,” probate judge Ben Gettinger wrote in a February decree
after the hearing on the motion. Instead of adjudicating the issue in
his courtroom, Gettinger opted for the bar counsel investigation to run
its course, noting that he would then determine if the investigation
“adequately addressed the specific allegations in this case.” In his
decree, Gettinger noted it was unclear whether he had any jurisdiction
to rule on the misconduct, raising a question over how to handle the
process.
The matter
is currently before a local grievance panel that will investigate the
case before either dismissing it or moving it to a public hearing. When
asked by a CT Insider reporter about the grievance investigation
and Gettinger's decree, Exner provided an email statement.
"The
grievance process in Connecticut is complex, private and self-governing.
It is there to ensure that as attorneys, we continue to maintain high
standards of practice," said Exner. "Rule 3.6 of the Rules of
Professional Responsibility sets limitations on attorneys making extra
judicial statements, and addresses any attorney who would attempt to
utilize the press to prejudice the process. For anyone to speculate or
gossip on the process and procedures is unprofessional and disrespectful
to those who give of their time.”
Exner remains working
on probate matters across the state as a conservator contracted by the
state's probate administration, records show. The probate
administration, the state's operational oversight body for the probate
courts, has told CT Insider that it does not have disciplinary authority
over conservator conduct. Although some conservators, like Exner, are
attorneys and remain accountable to the state's bar counsel, there are
no overarching oversight structures for the professional conservators
that sometimes juggle dozens - or even hundreds - of cases across
multiple courts.
The contract for state-paid conservators,
however, allows the probate administration to terminate a conservator's
contract if they have broken the state's Conservator Standards of
Practice. Even if a professional conservator's contract with the state
is terminated, they may still be eligible to be paid hourly by the state
for other conservatorships.
While
probate records do not indicate that the administration has terminated
Exner’s contract, some probate judges, like Gettinger, have opted not to
appoint Exner to future cases until the matter is resolved.
“In
addition, given the totality of the circumstances surrounding this case,
the Court will not appoint Kristan Exner to any of its files
indefinitely,” Gettinger wrote in the February decree.
The probate
administration declined to answer questions on the status of Exner's
contract with the state or whether it has audited any of her accounts.
Attorney
Damon Kirschbaum, who represents the Tobins, first wrote to the probate
administration about “rogue conservator Kristan Exner” in June 2024.
Exner had been removed as Tobin’s conservator but remained involved as
an “interested party" as the Tobins were fighting to regain ownership of
the home.
“I am and
will be imploring you, the Probate Court Administration, and
Judge Gettinger to protect Barbara Tobin from Kristan Exner,” Kirschbaum
wrote in the email, which was obtained from a Freedom of Information
request to the probate administration.
The emails show that Kirschbaum and an attorney for the probate administration had a conversation about Exner, subsequently.
Kirschbaum
wrote to the administration again in October, informing the
administration of a motion he filed requesting the permanent disbarment
of Exner in light of the new information on Exner's connection to her
business partner Garin to whom she sold the Tobin's home. The business
partners owned a limited liability company together, according to
secretary of the state records.
“Exner’s
conduct demonstrates that she is unfit to serve as a fiduciary. It is my
understanding that Exner serves as a probate court-appointed fiduciary
in a significant number of probate court cases across the state,”
Kirschbaum said in the letter. “I am writing to bring this situation to
Your Honor’s attention so that Your Honor can take the appropriate steps
to protect other vulnerable people from Exner.”
The
administration said in an October meeting that it was reviewing the
letter. In statements to CT Insider in the months since, the
administration has said it does not have authority to intervene on court
matters.
"Any matter
pending before a Probate Court is a judicial proceeding within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the court," said attorney Evan Brunetti,
director of external affairs for the probate administration. "We cannot
intervene or comment on a matter before any court, the
adjudicative/decision making process of a Probate Judge, or direct that
any court take any particular action."
Mairead
Painter, the state's Long Term Care Ombudsman, explained that many
professional conservators work across multiple courts and that one
probate court may not know about misconduct that occurred in a different
court.
"If concerns
come up in several courts about the same conservator, a judge isn't
going to know that unless they're given the information," said
Painter. "We need some way to have that information sharing in an
appropriate way between probate courts so there is a higher level of
accountability there."
Painter said the state needs to find more accountability structures that can work in tandem with the probate administration.
“We have good standards, it’s holding people accountable to them,” said Painter.
MILFORD - Probate Judge Ben Gettinger did not exceed his authority by ordering the disclosure of documents related to the estate of a former lawyer
whose housekeeper became her new conservator the month she was
diagnosed with Alzheimer's, a state Superior Court judge ruled this
month.
In a 14-page
ruling, Judge Barbara Bellis wrote that the documents requested by a
longtime friend and prior conservator of the lawyer, Jackale Williams,
"could reasonably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence" related
to whether Williams' housekeeper, Sylvia Ponzo, or the housekeeper's
mother, Gina McKay, who became conservator of Williams' estate in
September 2024, acted in good faith and in accordance with Williams'
best interests.
"It
is undisputed that after being appointed power of attorney, McKay
changed the beneficiary designations of certain financial accounts to
the 2024 trust and also transferred over $32,000 from an account outside
of the defendants' control," said Bellis' decision. "All these acts
occurred in the same month the plaintiff was diagnosed with Alzheimer's
disease."
In
court filings, Williams' cousin and lifelong friend, Claudia
Montecalvo, said she and Williams "had long ago made a pact to take each
other 'from cradle to grave'" and that she had been appointed
conservator following the death of Williams' husband.
But
after Williams began having trouble with her memory three years later,
Montecalvo and her daughter alleged in court papers, 18 of "Williams'
friends and family began reporting that they were being denied access to
Williams by Williams' cleaning person, Sylvia Ponzo."
The
Montecalvos alleged that a few months later, Ponzo took Williams' phone
away "such that Williams stopped responding to calls and texts, when it
had otherwise been normal for her to do so." Later that year,
Montecalvo's power of attorney was revoked, and a new power of attorney
named Ponzo's daughter, McKay, as her new agent.
Montecalvo alleged
Ponzo and McKay told Williams "that Claudia planned to sell Williams'
home and commit Williams to a nursing home" before a revocable living
trust was set up in Williams' name and her home was transferred into it.
After
Gettinger ordered the disclosure of documents related to the setup of
Williams' 2024 estate, the estate appealed to Superior Court.
Judge Bellis'
decision denying the appeal, dated March 20, noted that the prior
conservator will "ultimately have the burden of proving any breaches of
an agent's duties."
Bellis
wrote that the arguments cited by Williams' current conservator arguing
against the documents' disclosure while Williams is alive is not
consistent with state law or prior cases.
"Under
the plaintiff's interpretation, a power of attorney could act in
accordance with estate plans despite possibly knowing that (1) the
principal was mentally compromised when making them, and (2) the estate
plans were changed to benefit her and her relative," the decision said.
"The court cannot hold, as a matter of law, that a breach of duty cannot
be found under those circumstances."
Kristin Exner, a Connecticut lawyer and state-appointed conservator, made headlines last year when another attorney petitioned to
have her disbarred. That petition followed two instances in which she
sold houses owned by people whose estates she controlled to the co-owner
of her real estate business. The houses were allegedly sold below
market rate and then resold by her real estate company for a profit.
The complaint was forwarded to a local grievance panel by the
Statewide Bar Counsel’s Office on Feb. 26. In the meantime, Exner will
not be appointed to manage new cases in the Milford-Orange Probate
Court, according to court documents.
In addition to that petition, court records show that three
Connecticut nursing homes have accused Exner of neglecting eight people
in conservatorships by failing to maintain their Medicaid benefits.
These nursing homes have not received payments for care, one of Exner’s
responsibilities as a conservator, allegedly shorting them almost
$195,000, which they are seeking to recover via lawsuits.
Exner tells a different story. She calls these suits “baseless,”
“frivolous,” and says they “have no merit.” Court records show that the
lawyer who filed the petition to have Exner disbarred has represented
multiple people in suing Exner, and defended a woman who was ultimately
removed from a conservatorship that Exner took over.
This investigation provides an overview of the role of a conservator,
a summary of the issues documented at the Norwalk-Wilton Probate Court,
and the allegations made by nursing homes currently working their way
through Connecticut’s judicial system.
An Appointed Power
A conservator is
someone appointed by a probate court judge to oversee the personal or
financial affairs of an incapacitated adult who is deemed incapable of
competently managing on their own. According to a report published by
Connecticut’s Probate Court Administrator Workgroup, conservators are
most often relatives; however, if a court determines that an adult needs
a conservator but cannot find a relative or close friend who is fit to
manage that adult’s affairs, a judge may appoint a third-party lawyer.
That’s where Exner’s role as a state-appointed conservator comes in.
Exner is one of hundreds of lawyers in the state whom judges appoint
to manage conservatorships. Like other lawyers in this line of work, she
is either paid by the conserved person via their financial assets or
through a state fund. As is required by law, if she is working for a
person with an estate, she charges an hourly rate for the work she does
to manage the conservatorship and then submits the invoices to a probate
judge for approval. Once the invoices are cleared, she can receive payment.
If a person is indigent, Exner receives compensation through the Probate Court Administrative Fund,
which has taxpayer money that is appropriated to the Judicial
Department. In those instances, there is a flat rate of $90 a month,
with an additional one-time payment of $1,300 to handle Medicaid
applications, which her case files indicate is substantially less than
what she charges in her private practice.
Conservatorship can be controversial in Connecticut and across the country. In the past few years, there have been highly publicized instances of conservators abusing their power.
There are even some high profile celebrities that were placed under
conservatorships, including Britney Spears, whose parents allegedly forced her to
have an IUD and prohibited her from getting married, former Beach Boys
member Brian Wilson whose conservator Eugene Landy who gave him unnecessary psychiatric medication and had him monitored 24-7, and former NFL quarterback Michael Oher,
the player who inspired “The Blind Side,” who claimed that his
conservators lied to him to get him to sign away his rights by claiming
he was being adopted. In all of these cases, the conservators extracted
millions of dollars from the conserved people over the course of many
years.
But most instances of conservatorship abuse do not involve millionaires or celebrities.
There are an estimated 1.5 million adults and $273 billion under the control of guardians or conservators in the United States.
“The extent of elder abuse by guardians [and conservatorship]
nationally is unknown due to limited data on key factors related to
elder abuse by a guardian, such as the numbers of guardians serving
older adults, older adults in guardianships, and cases of elder abuse by
a guardian,” a 2016 report from the federal Government Accountability Office (GAO) found.
The lack of transparency and comprehensive understanding is, in part,
due to a lack of comprehensive documentation of the various types of
elder abuse committed by different types of guardians, including
conservators. However, the GAO researchers did find indications that
financial abuse is the most common form of elder abuse in guardianship.
No one has accused Exner of abusing any of her conservatees, but she
is facing multiple charges of negligence. Additionally, she is accused
of selling two houses that were a part of estates she managed, including
one that was in a conservatorship, to a man with whom she co-owned a
real estate company.
Exner declined to comment on the house sales because they were a part of ongoing litigation.
The Norwalk-Wilton Probate Court District
Inside Investigator reviewed the files for 16 open conservatorships
Exner manages in the Norwalk-Wilton Probate Court District. This is not a
comprehensive list of her conservatorship cases, and Exner did not
respond to a question about how many conservatorships she is managing in
total.
Filings show that Exner charges $250 per hour for her services when
she is managing someone who has an estate, and one of her paralegals
charges $150 an hour. For one of the conserved people she is managing—a
72-year-old man with depression, benign prostatic hyperplasia, and who
thinks he has dementia, even though his medical evaluations do not
indicate that—her law firmwas paid $13,800 for services rendered in a two-year period between April 2023 and May 2025.
That man’s files contain an email exchange between him and Exner
during her annual check-in, and the notes from that check-in. According
to those documents, both he and Exner are happy with the conservatorship
arrangement.
Some of her other cases are more complex.
Sometimes she made decisions that the conserved individual did not like.
For example, Exner sold the house of one of the conserved persons
under her care, against that woman’s wishes. The house in question had
plumbing and structural issues, which the woman could not afford to fix,
according to Exner’s report. Even though the woman was financially
supporting her two adult sons, who lived in the house, prior to becoming
conserved she had not paid her bills for months leading up to the sale.
Finally, the home was facing foreclosure. Exner was appointed as the
conservator, paid the bills, and by the time Exner sold the house, the
woman had already moved in with her granddaughter.
Almost all of the people identified by Inside Investigator whose
affairs Exner managed needed help managing their healthcare. All but
three people under her care in the Norwalk-Wilton district suffered from
dementia or severe mental illness when they were assigned a
conservator.
Of the three conserved people who Exner managed without dementia or
documented mental illness, one of them was a brain-dead homeless man who
was brought to Norwalk Hospital after he was discovered unconscious in a
bush. He was on a ventilator for several weeks but was not responding
to treatment. The staff at the Hospital could not find a living
relative, nor any documentation that stated whether or not he wanted to
be resuscitated. Hospital officials petitioned the court to appoint a
conservator, who wound up being Exner, then advised Exner to tell them
to take him off life support. She did.
The second was a woman who did not have any documented mental
illnesses, but she was flagged for conservatorship when she refused
medical treatment at a hospital. Exner was appointed to her case to get
her medical treatment. According to filings in her conservatorship case,
the Department of Children and Families (DCF) opened a case into that
woman’s child because of suspected domestic violence. A Motion for
Advice submitted by Exner states, “the Conservator has a reasonable
belief of domestic violence and abuse in the home against (her), and
that she is not capable of making decisions for her safety and well
being.”
The last person was a 79-year-oldwoman of sound
mind who petitioned the court to voluntarily enter a conservatorship
last year because she needed help re-applying for Medicaid.
Even though Medicaid is legally guaranteed for people below a certain income threshold, it can be difficult to obtain.
In 2012, a group of 5,000 Connecticut residents sued the Department
of Social Services (DSS) for taking too long to process Medicaid
applications. State law required most Medicaid applications to be
processed within 45 days, but thousands of
people had to wait longer. The class-action lawsuit was settled in
2014, and as a part of the settlement, the state had to commit to hiring
109 more people to help process applications and to process at least
92% of Medicaid and short-term care applications within the statutory
timeframe by 2016. The state was given a two-year extension to meet that
deadline, but fell behind. In 2018, only 85% of applications were processed on time.
Things turned around shortly after. By 2022, 98% of Medicaid applications
were being processed within 24 hours of submission. However, submitting
the application is only one step in the process. To get Medicaid for
assisted living, a person needs to submit financial documents from the
previous five years to prove they qualify for help. It can take months
to gather the paperwork needed to apply for Medicaid.
While attorney fees vary, typically, the type of lawyer who practices elder law charges between $200 and $250 per hour.
The consequences for not obtaining Medicaid can be dire.
There are only six reasons that
a nursing home can evict a patient, and non-payment is one of them. A
home is required to give residents 30 days’ notice before eviction, and a
resident or their representative can appeal. These appeal processes
can drag on for
months, but at the end of the day, state officials cannot force a
nursing home to continue to care for a nonpaying resident.
The lawsuits against Exner show that homes will keep a resident
despite months, and sometimes years, of non-payment. If a resident has a
pending application for Medicaid, a nursing home legally cannot evict them. However, during this time, debt can accumulate.
Sometimes, this debt can be paid retroactively from portions of the person’s estate. One of the nursing homes that is suing
Exner is trying to access the estate of a deceased man whose
conservatorship she managed. Since she was his legal representative in
life, she is automatically listed as a defendant, even though she is no
longer managing his estate. That man has a daughter, who is also being
sued.
In the worst-case scenario, a resident is evicted.
One of Exner’s conservatees was evicted from a nursing home in 2023,
before she managed his case. The man, who had severe medical conditions,
was homeless for a period of time and lived in various hospitals until
Exner found a home where he could live. This conservatee was determined
to be not of sound mind and couldn’t make decisions for himself.
Less than a year ago, Exner became a conservator of that 79-year-old
woman who was of sound mind. When Inside Investigator reviewed the court
records in mid-February, it was not clear if Exner had yet successfully
helped the woman reapply for Medicaid. The records also did not contain
any invoices. The conserved person continued to live at the nursing
home she resided in when she voluntarily asked to be placed under a
conservatorship, Wilton Meadows Nursing & Rehabilitation in Wilton,
until Feb. 9, according to a social worker at the center. She left the
nursing home to live with her family.
The social worker said that Exner and her office were “nothing but
excellent and responsive,” and “we had no issues or problems working
with them.”
But not every nursing home has had positive experiences with Exner.
Nursing Home Allegations
Inside Investigator found four lawsuits filed by nursing homes
against Exner in the state of Connecticut. Three of them, which were all
filed in 2023, are still ongoing. Those three each contain allegations
that Exner neglected people under her care by mismanaging their Medicaid
payments and applications.
The three active lawsuits came from the Waterbury Center for Nursing & Rehabilitation, the West Haven Center for Nursing & Rehabilitation, and the Southport Center
for Nursing & Rehabilitation. Together, these lawsuits allege Exner
improperly managed Medicaid applications and payments made to eight
senior citizens.
All three lawsuits were filed by attorney Taruna Garg at Harris Beach
Murtha Attorneys at Law. Each lawsuit starts with a list of 19
identical lines outlining the responsibilities Exner had to ensure the
people in her care had Medicaid, and why that was important. Then, it
repeats those 19 lines when it outlines each “count” of negligence it
accuses Exner of. In each lawsuit, there is one count per resident in
Exner’s care.
“In connection with her appointment as conservator of the estate of
the wards referenced herein,” each lawsuit states, “Exner has been
granted both the duty and authority to enroll in, apply for, and claim
benefits from federal or state benefit programs, including Medicaid. At
all relevant times herein, Exner knew or should have known that public
assistance would be required to cover the monthly cost of services
provided by Plaintiff for the care, comfort, and maintenance of her
wards, including lodging and meals. Exner was obligated to perform her
duties within a reasonable time given the circumstances of each ward…
Exner has failed to fulfill her statutory obligations to timely apply
for and obtain benefits, among other actions, on behalf of her ward.”
Exner categorically denies these claims.
“Those allegations were part of frivolous lawsuits that have either
been withdrawn or are in the process of being withdrawn, and are
factually false,” Exner said in an email. “In every instance where I am
appointed conservator, my sole priority is the welfare of the person to
whom I have been appointed.”
Some of the claims made by the nursing homes have already been
withdrawn. Each complaint was amended multiple times. All Centers
removed Exner’s former employer, Gallo & Associates, LLC, as a
defendant, modified language in the complaints, and made additional
revisions to remove counts of neglect.
The Waterbury Center revised its initial complaint twice,
in addition to removing Gallo & Associates as a defendant. It
struck three counts of negligence and revised the alleged dollar amounts
lost in one case. The nursing home initially calculated that a patient
owed $112,000 in debt, but increased the estimated debt to $139,000.
The West Haven Center also made tworevisions that each removed a single count of alleged neglect. The Southport Center also submitted two revisions that withdrew twocounts of neglect.
When withdrawing one count of neglect, the Southport center also
withdrew an allegation that Exner transferred $100,000 from a resident’s
bank account to her employer, and that she charged improper rates.
Garg filed a separate lawsuit for each nursing home before combining the three into one lawsuit.
Online judicial records show that Garg filed for three extensions to
provide evidence of these claims, and Exner applied for one extension of
time to plead. Garg attempted to get a default decision against Exner
for “failure to plead,” but that was rejected.
Garg did not respond to questions.
“I have no comment on those cases,” Garg said.
But there are other records in the Norwalk probate files that indicate persistent problems with Exner.
In 2023, the Business Office Manager at the Southport Center for
Nursing and Rehabilitation, Marcia Henry, emailed the probate court,
asking Exner to be removed as the conservator of a resident mentioned in
the lawsuit, although the allegation of neglect was later withdrawn.
The email stated, “I have attempted to reach out to Attorney Exner on
numerous occasions via calls to her office in which I would speak to [a]
representative who would transfer to her voicemail with no return call.
I have sent numerous emails with no response. (The resident Medicaid
application) has been down since 07/19/2013 due to lack of supportive
documents such as bank statements and [updated] gross pension benefits
needed from the conservator. This is a serious matter now that the
resident has no medical insurance coverage and owes the facility money.”
When asked about this email, Exner said, “[He] remains a client for
whom I am serving as conservator, and we remain in regular contact. I
was not familiar with those claims, but I can tell you based on my
knowledge of the case that they are baseless.”
Exner has also had other issues with nursing homes.
Another facility, the Mary Wade Home in New Haven, is suing Exner and
the daughter of a deceased former resident, whose conservatorship Exner
managed. The Mary Wade Home is accusing Exner of failing to get
Medicaid for the conserved person and claimed that he owed them over
$80,000 by the time he died. The Mary Wade Home filed the lawsuit to try to get some money from his estate, according to court filings.
The petition for discovery states that Exner was applying for
Medicaid on behalf of the conservatee when he was admitted to the home,
but that application was later denied. The complaint states that staff
at the Mary Wade Home tried to collect payment for the year that he
lived there, but no payments were sent.
Exner say these claims are “incorrect.”
“His Medicaid application was not denied,” she wrote in an email. “As
with all of my clients in which I am appointed conservator, my sole
goal is to maintain their dignity, keep them safe and try and help them
make their lives more livable. That was the case here as well.”
The Ludlow Center for Health and Rehabilitation also sued Exner, accusing her
of failing to apply for Medicaid on behalf of a resident and,
consequently, not paying the nursing home for their services. The home
won a default judgment because she failed to plead.
Garg has represented at least one other nursing
home in a case against a different conservator, the Connecticut
Judicial Branch’s online portal shows. In the lawsuit, the Plaintiff won
a default judgment because the conservators failed to plead.
Damon Kirschbaum, the lawyer who filed for Exner to be disbarred, has
had multiple run-ins with Exner. This includes one lawsuit where he
represented a woman who was removed from a case that Exner took over.
The former conservator, Rachel Menti, was initially designed by the
conserved person himself. But she was removed when his family made
numerous allegations of misconduct against her, and she was caught lying
about her relationship with him to the staff at a hospital. Menti, who
had no familial relationship to the man, told staff at a hospital that
she was his daughter.
Conclusion
None of the nursing homes who have sued Exner for negligence evicted the residents they claim owe them money.
According to the most up-to-date court documents, the Southport
nursing home calculates its current losses at around $36,454.85. The
nursing homes in West Haven and Waterbury calculate their losses at
around $20,000 and $139,000, respectively.
The nursing homes’ court filings each accuse Exner of trying to
remove residents from their care in response to their complaints.
Each of the three active lawsuits against Exner simultaneously claims
that “harm and losses are anticipated to continue accruing” if the
residents remain in their care, and that Exner is “retaliating” against
them by moving residents out of the facilities “in an effort to cause
additional harm.” Inside Investigator was not able to confirm the
current addresses of the four residents listed in the lawsuit.
Last year, Exner tried to persuade the Connecticut General Assembly
to give conservators qualified immunity “for actions taken in good faith
and in accordance with court orders,” according to a testimony she submitted.
A Trial Management Conference for the three lawsuits filed by Garg is
scheduled for the morning of November 10, 2026. If a settlement is not
reached, the case will move to a jury trial. A jury selection date has
already been set for November 19, 2026.
One of the lawsuits filed by Kirschbaum, in which his client is
accusing Exner of mismanaging his mother’s estate when she was his
conservator and selling her house to her business partner, has a hearing scheduled for the morning of Monday, March 23.
“This is an ongoing case and therefore I am unable to comment,” Exner said in an email.
News 12 has obtained court documents detailing a request from the conservator of the Waterbury man, allegedly held captive by his stepmother, to sue the state.
In February 2025, the victim, known as "S," was rescued after he started a fire in his home in order to escape.
Conservatrix Kristan Exner claims that if the Department of Children and Families had properly investigated, then "S" would have been able to live freely.
The claim seeks more than $50,000 in damages.
In the criminal case, the stepmother, Kimberly Sullivan, has previously pleaded not guilty.
State law says that anyone who wants to sue the state for monetary damages needs to get permission from the Claims Commission.
