FLORENCE, S.C. (WBTW) — A 64-year-old Dillon County woman is accused
of stealing more than $34,000 from a Florence nursing home resident
while acting as their conservator and power of attorney, according to
the South Carolina Attorney General’s Office.
Delores Ann Edge of Latta is accused of one count of exploitation of a
vulnerable adult and one count of breach of trust with fraudulent
intent, with a value of $10,000 or more. She was booked into the
Florence County Detention Center on Wednesday.
“Investigators determined that Edge, while acting as the victim’s
conservator and power of attorney, knowingly and willfully engaged in
improper, unlawful, and unauthorized use of the victim’s assets and
property,” the attorney general’s office said in a news release. “The
investigation further established that Edge expended approximately
$34,071.98 of the victim’s funds for her own personal benefit without
lawful authority or permission to do so.”
The alleged exploitation occurred between April 23, 2024, and Feb. 6,
the attorney general’s office said. At the time, the victim was a
resident at Veterans Village Nursing Home in Florence.
The attorney general’s Vulnerable Adults and Medicaid Provider Fraud
unit, known as VAMPF, investigated the case along with the Florence
County Sheriff’s Office. The Dillon County Sheriff’s Office assisted
with the arrest of Edge.
If convicted, Edge faces up to five years in prison and a fine of not
more than $5,000, or both, for the exploitation charge, the attorney
general’s office said. The breach of trust charge carries a sentence of
up to 10 years in prison or a fine at the discretion of the court.
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.
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.
Redmond O'Neal has been drug-free and a model patient for five years at Patton State Hospital, according to his conservator.
Farrah Fawcett's son, Redmond O'Neal, is making great strides in his
recovery from drug addiction, his conservator Mela Murphy says. Redmond
has been drug-free and a model patient for five years at Patton State
Hospital, where he has found proper mental health support and is
participating in 12-step recovery. Murphy says Redmond has overcome many
challenges in his life and that Fawcett would be proud of his progress.
Why it matters
Redmond O'Neal has long struggled with drug addiction and legal
troubles, including arrests for drug possession and an alleged armed
robbery crime spree. His recovery journey highlights the importance of
mental health support and treatment for those battling substance abuse
issues.
The details
According to his conservator Mela Murphy, Redmond has been
drug-free and a model patient at Patton State Hospital for the past five
years. He is participating in 12-step recovery, helping other patients,
reading daily, and has found a spiritual life. Murphy says Redmond's
past drug problems were a result of not having proper mental health
support earlier in his life, but that the medication and treatment he is
receiving at Patton State Hospital are now working well for him.
Redmond O'Neal has been drug-free and a model patient at Patton State Hospital for the past five years.
In May 2018, Redmond was arrested for an alleged armed robbery and held without bail following a multiday crime spree.
Redmond was initially ruled incompetent to stand trial, but a 2025 reversal meant he would face the charges in court.
The players
Redmond O'Neal
Farrah
Fawcett's son who has long struggled with drug addiction and legal
troubles, but is now making progress in his recovery at Patton State
Hospital.
Mela Murphy
Redmond O'Neal's godmother and conservator, who says he has been drug-free and a model patient for the past five years.
Farrah Fawcett
Actress and mother of Redmond O'Neal, who passed away in 2009 after a battle with anal cancer.
Ryan O'Neal
Redmond O'Neal's father, who also passed away in December 2023.
What they’re saying
“Redmond has
been drug-free and a model patient for five years now at Patton State
Hospital. He has had to overcome so much in his life. We are proud of
him, and Farrah would be too. He finally got a proper mental health
diagnosis and medication.”
— Mela Murphy, Redmond O'Neal's godmother and conservator
“I
believe his serious drug problems in the past were a result of not
having mental health support in his earlier life. Today, he is
participating in 12-step recovery, helps out patients, reads every day
and has found a spiritual life. There are many friends and supporters of
Redmond who are in contact with him and are so proud of his journey to
recovery.”
— Mela Murphy, Redmond O'Neal's godmother and conservator
What’s next
The judge in Redmond O'Neal's 2018 armed robbery case will
decide on Tuesday whether to allow him to be released on bail after his
three-year hospitalization at Patton State Hospital.
At
an assisted-living home, Vinit Shinde lay paralyzed in bed attempting
to suck on a lollipop. One of his aides had positioned the phone so that
Vinit’s brother and sister-in-law could see him. Eventually when the
aide removed her hand from the stick holding the lollipop in Vinit’s
mouth, he seemed to gag, trying to activate any muscles of his jaw,
tongue, and throat to stop the lollipop from entering his throat or
dropping out of his mouth.
In
January 2018, Vinit suffered a severe and abrupt brain aneurysm at the
age of 45. Multiple doctors deemed him to be in an extreme vegetative
state, meaning that he did not have the typical brain function to
exhibit mood or affect, cognitive functioning, executive functioning,
language, or memory.
Today,
Vinit is alive because of a feeding tube and full-time care–but mostly
because of a decision made in Georgia’s Fulton County Probate Court,
transferring guardianship of his nearly $1 million estate and future
medical decisions from his brother to his ex-wife and court-appointed
attorneys. Vinit is now one of an estimated
1.3 million adults in the U.S. living under guardianship, whose
guardians control roughly $50 billion in assets. Across the country,
these arrangements are typically under the control of an insular group
of state judges and lawyers, who take on financial, legal, and medical
decisions for people who may be elderly or otherwise mentally
incapacitated.
Once
a guardianship has been cemented and a person is officially a ward of
the state, there is little recourse to change how their guardian makes
financial and medical decisions for them. While they’re done with the
interest of people like Vinit in mind, in practice, they can often be
mired in ethical, legal, and cultural dilemmas—posing a seemingly
unending string of impossible choices for the people who love and care
for them.
Before
the guardianship was transferred to Vinit’s ex-wife–whom he separated
from in 2012 and divorced from in 2016–his family had made the difficult
decision to move him into hospice. Without a will or advance directive,
his only living immediate relative, his brother, had signed a Physician
Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment agreement with two doctors to
transition him off of life support. After years of consulting medical
professionals and believing that this would not have been a dignified
life for Vinit, they proceeded with the move to hospice.
Then
Vinit’s ex-wife—who would visit him from time to time—contacted the
Capitol Ombudsman Program director in Atlanta to allege that he was not
actually in a vegetative state but that he only appeared to be in one.
In public legal filings, she claimed that Vinit could watch television
and communicate with others by blinking, smiling, and laughing. (Slate
has reached out to Vinit’s ex-wife and her lawyer for comment, and has
not received a response.)
The
ombudsman set up time to observe Vinit, after which she determined that
removing his feeding tube was not in his best interests. Several
nonmedical staff at the home also expressed in a letter that they were
“distressed” about Vinit’s move into hospice, because “they believe [he]
responds to them with smiling and that he also smiles while watching
TV.”
In
depositions with two of his doctors, conservatorship lawyers for his
ex-wife presented the theory that there could have been a chance,
however infinitesimal, that he would be satisfied in a consciousness
that involved blinking his desires. She sought out to prove that not
only was Vinit conscious but that his condition could be improved.
Later, she filed a petition in the Fulton County Probate Court, seeking
to remove Vinit’s brother as his guardian and conservator, and
requesting that she be appointed the successor. With his ex-wife
emboldened by the support from nonmedical experts at the home and the
ombudsman, a fight over Vinit’s life and medical treatment—and the
conservatorship of his nearly $1 million estate—ensued.
Even
though both Vinit’s family and ex-wife may have his best interests at
heart and want to make the right decisions for him, they’re still left
with a set of decisions that have no right answer. What is in the best
interest for someone you love who can no longer care for or make these
choices for themselves? Can you let them go if there’s a chance—however
slim—that they can get better? These decisions underscore the complexity
behind the guardianship system at large. While this may not be the case
with Vinit, the system as a whole has long come under scrutiny amid
allegations of abuse, neglect, and even corruption throughout the
country.
While
individual family members or friends may have a myriad of desires and
opinions on how to handle care for an incapacitated loved one, the
financial and legal structures of the guardianship system can be ripe
for evading accountability and concentrating power among one or a few
stakeholders. For example, in Georgia, one 2020 investigation
uncovered apparent conflicts of interest in Fulton County’s
guardianship system, including a case where a court-appointed
independent lawyer donated to the judge overseeing the case. In New York, a ProPublica investigation
found rampant neglect and abuse, revealing that examiners tasked with
care “tend to focus almost exclusively on financial paperwork” rather
than the care and condition of wards. As a result, in August, the state announced a task force to overhaul the program, with some pushing for new legislation.
Other
states are taking notice: Pennsylvania now requires professional
guardians to pass certification exams, while Illinois lawmakers are
pushing to make it harder for private guardians to profit off of
vulnerable people who have no one else to look after them—after reports
that a private guardianship company and law firms representing hospitals
appeared to be colluding to run up costly bills at the expense of the
people under guardianship.
Georgia’s policies around life and death were recently thrust into the spotlight in the case of Adriana Smith,
a 30-year-old mother and nurse who was kept alive, brain-dead, as a
vessel to give birth to a baby without her consent. Smith was caught in
the crosshairs of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision,
validating a Georgia state law that considered her fetus a person if it
had a heartbeat. And the public at-large became familiar with the
concept of conservatorship because of Britney Spears, whose finances were tied up and controlled by her family after the system deemed her mentally unstable.
Then there’s Terri Schiavo’s case
in the early 2000s. Schiavo was considered by doctors to be in a
persistent vegetative state after her brain was deprived of oxygen.
While her husband conveyed what he thought her wishes would be—to have
life support withdrawn—her parents believed that she smiled and
expressed emotion. After life support was withdrawn, autopsies confirmed that she was indeed in a “persistent vegetative state.”
More recently, there has been a rise in what legislators are calling “death with dignity”
legislation. In several states, including Colorado, Maine, Montana, and
Nevada, legislation has passed or is being considered to allow for
people to choose physician-assisted death when they decide that life is
unbearable. But in these cases, many people still have the agency and
critical thinking skills to make that decision for themselves.
For example, one man in Maine chose physician-assisted death
last November after a long battle in ALS. His wife—now an advocate for
others to do the same—reported that he had lost the ability to speak and
swallow, and that his claustrophobia made him feel like he was
“drowning and suffocating” at the same time. Opponents or those with
more nuanced approaches to “death with dignity” believe that lines
should be drawn around depression or certain disabilities—that choosing
death while depressed is more about abandonment than autonomy.
But
what about people like Vinit, who could never have predicted a sudden
brain bleed rendering him with no autonomy? Who gets to choose for them?
Both Vinit’s family and his ex-wife may want the best for him—but even
they can’t know what exactly he would choose if he could right now. It’s
a case that’s emblematic of the core problem: These are impossible
decisions, and there’s no “right” choice with an impossible decision.
Several
years ago, Vinit was barely spending time in bed unless he was
sleeping. With no kids or pets and recently divorced, he had very few
grounding commitments beyond his job as an IT architect and a condo he
owned in Atlanta. According to friends and family, Vinit was a
gregarious person who liked to explore the world and had many friends.
His ex-girlfriend Sarah told Slate that he “knew no stranger,” was
“witty and funny,” and “everyone’s best friend.” One of his best friends
told Slate over text that “Vinit was vibrant, highly intelligent,
popular, and positive. Simply put, he was a pleasure to be around.” His
brother described him as a “kind, generous and very social person.”
On Jan. 27, 2018, Vinit’s 45th
birthday, he didn’t show up to work. Two days later, his employer
alerted his family. His family also had wondered if something was wrong,
as they hadn’t heard from him on his birthday either. Vinit’s best
friend, his best friend’s wife, and his ex-wife went to check on him at
his apartment. He was discovered by his best friend collapsed on the
floor, awake but incoherent.
Doctors
found that he had suffered a subarachnoid hemorrhage resulting from a
ruptured brain aneurysm. While they were able to coil the rupture and
keep his heart beating, he was extremely impaired—unable to swallow,
communicate, move his body, or control his bowel movements.
Vinit’s
brother recalls a neurosurgeon at the time saying that Vinit’s brain
was so damaged that the most he could ever do was “move his neck from
one place to another, or utter a few words,” he told Slate. In November
2018, around nine months after the aneurysm, another neurologist echoed
this analysis, telling the family that Vinit did not qualify for any
treatment options or experimental treatments because there was no
improvement in his condition.
Yet
Vinit’s family felt he was too young to let go. They moved him to a
brain injury rehabilitation center, but doctors there also concluded
that his brain condition was irreversible. It was around this time that
Vinit’s brother was appointed his conservator and guardian in Georgia.
He was moved to a nursing home, where physicians initially urged the
deescalation of life-sustaining care due to his negative prognosis and
poor quality of life. Vinit’s family was paying out of pocket for his
treatment, and they also crowdfunded
among friends and family to pay for some of his rising medical costs,
hoping that some progress could be made to improve his cognitive
functioning and quality of life.
But
two years after the aneurysm, Vinit was not showing any signs of
cognitive improvement. In a deposition, one of his doctors said he was
technically “demented,” but that his cognition was far worse than
someone who has dementia. A medical social worker also acknowledged that
Vinit was on a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube through which
all medication and nutrition were administered, and that he had “no
awareness of his surroundings and no purposeful movements.” A note
reviewed from his care center to a Georgia ombudsman referred to him as
“essentially brain-dead.”
His
brother told Slate that he imagined that the Vinit who was single,
enjoying his local bars, drinking beer, and traveling the world would
not have wanted to live in a bed covered in sores, unable to
communicate, and without the ability to feed, clothe, or bathe himself
unless fully assisted.
He
also reflected upon a conversation that the brothers had in 2017 at
their mother’s funeral, where they agreed that neither brother would
want a long or painful death like that of their father, who died of a
prolonged battle with cancer.
While
difficult to accept, Vinit’s brother and two doctors—the attending
physician at his home and the medical director of the hospice—signed the
POLST agreement, recommending discontinuation of care and designating
the three of them as the people who would make the end-of-life decisions
on his behalf.
In
January 2021, Vinit was referred to hospice, which the ethics committee
of the health care facility had no objections to. It was a
heart-wrenching decision for the family, but in a final letter written
to Vinit’s attending physician at the assisted-living home, his family
wrote: “[We] would talk to [Vinit] about settling down with a family and
buying a house. However, that was not his plan. He wanted to live
freely on his own terms.”
What
further complicates this answer about what is right or wrong for Vinit
is that researchers are giving pause to the idea that all people in
vegetative states have no consciousness—or that all people who become
nonverbal and paralyzed would rather choose death. These factors are
large parts of the reason why Vinit’s family and his ex-wife may try all
options—no matter how small the chance of success—of keeping him alive.
In August 2024, neurologists published a study
into the potential for consciousness among vegetative or minimally
conscious patients. They found that 25 percent of the patients studied,
who were asked to spend several minutes completing cognitive tasks like
imagining themselves playing tennis or swimming, responded with the same
patterns of brain activity seen in people with healthy brains.
Following the 2024 study that found potential consciousness in certain vegetative patients, it was noted in the New York Times
that “it is possible that people with disorders of consciousness may
one day take advantage of brain implants that have been developed to
help people with other conditions to communicate.”
But
since many of these vegetative states are brought about by a sudden
event like an aneurysm—meaning many previously healthy people may not
have had time to prepare a will or directive—the question of what they
would have wanted can be a tricky one to decipher. What also complicates
who lives or dies is the court systems, and the many people involved in
a family member’s life or death who might have competing interests—many
of which might be valid and well-intentioned, depending on the
perspective.
At
the end of the day, the decision for Vinit’s guardianship came down to
money. A judge ruled that Vinit’s brother had not received the proper
court approval to sell about $20,000 of Vinit’s stock in order to pay
for certain bills piling up—and that he should have sold their deceased
mother’s home in India instead.
In
a Fulton County Probate Court presentation reviewed by Slate—called
“Playing God: The Ethical Conflicts in End-of-Life Decisions”—Vinit’s
story is used as a case study to demonstrate the need for the court to
intervene and keep him alive. They even use Bollywood actors in one of
the slides about Vinit.
While
the Georgia probate court likely does not have jurisdiction over a
family home in India, the court was still able to claim that Vinit’s
brother was not acting as a proper fiduciary in the stock sale. As a
result, he was removed as guardian and conservator. Vinit’s ex-wife was
appointed as guardian to oversee his medical affairs, while a county
conservator was appointed to oversee his finances.
His
brother appealed the decision, but the court-appointed attorney for
Vinit agreed with the court’s decision to strip him of his guardianship
over his brother. The attorney’s statement to the Georgia Court of
Appeals said that fiduciary considerations were more important than the
POLST agreement or end-of-life considerations.
Today,
Vinit’s family FaceTimes him weekly from Boston to see his face, and
they travel from their home in Boston to Atlanta when they can. He seems
vacant and incomprehensible to them.
But
now, the family feels mostly in the dark about Vinit’s current and
future medical plans. Medical records reviewed by Slate show that Vinit
has been in and out of Emory University Hospital over the past few years
since his ex-wife became guardian. One document from 2023 states that
his insurance did not cover “post-transplant immunosuppressive drugs
when [he] got this service.” The family does not know what “this
service” refers to, but Vinit’s family and friends have observed an
increasing amount of “blinking” in their recent interactions with
Vinit—as well as the blurting of unrelated words and letters.
This
ambiguity is obviously frustrating to his family. Vinit’s sister-in-law
describes the perpetuation of his life, especially if his bodily
autonomy is indeed being transferred to his ex-wife’s decision-making,
as “cruel.” His brother adds: “As Vinit’s only living relative, I have
not been consulted or informed about ongoing medical treatment, raising
serious ethical concerns. Why are we excluded from medical decisions
about his care?”
In April 2023, the Shinde family received an amicus brief in support of their case from end-of-life care nonprofit Compassion & Choices, which wrote that:
The “court’s primary focus should be on uncovering what the
incapacitated person would have wanted and that the process followed by
the Georgia probate court in this case did not allow for that to
happen.” A spokesperson for Compassion & Choices shared with Slate
that they “weighed in with the amicus brief to ensure that the court was
prioritizing what Mr. Shinde would have wanted when determining what
treatment decisions were or were not appropriate.”
With various medical advancements over the years that allow for brain
injury patients like Vinit to be kept alive in care homes, the decision
about whether to withdraw life support and care—or not—can feel
unthinkable. There are open medical and scientific questions around the
presence of covert consciousness—and ethical and sometimes religious
questions around whether someone’s body should remain preserved, even if
the person who they once were feels all but gone. Then, there’s the
optimism around future medical developments for brain injury patients,
the notion that there is even the slightest chance that someone could
improve, especially when their faces may exhibit expressions we classify
with consciousness, like smiling. Although there may be no meaning
behind those reflexes in patients with severe brain injuries, the
presence of those seemingly human expressions may make it even more
difficult to let someone go.
Beyond
Vinit and his brother’s conversation at their mother’s funeral, there
is no documented information about whether he would have desired to be
kept alive in such a condition. (Vinit’s ex-wife and lawyers did not
respond to Slate’s request for comment.) Sarah, the ex-girlfriend who
perhaps knew him most intimately closest to his aneurysm, told Slate she
never spoke to him about whether he would want to stay alive in a
vegetative state. But she did say that “I 100 percent think that he
would not want to be sitting in a bed for seven years.”
When
asked about the family’s decision, Sarah said: “I would have supported
their decision. There are two avenues of thought: First, I don’t think
anyone should live this way, he wouldn’t want that. But it’s also not my
decision. It’s the family’s.”
Kristan Exner has sold two homes as a court appointed fiduciary for Connecticut residents to her business associate without disclosing the relationship to probate courts, records show
By Ella Napack
Barbara Tobin was struggling and turned to probate court for help
managing her finances. The 61-year-old Milford resident was interested
in getting a conservator involved.
The Milford-Orange court appointed attorney Kristan Exner
in March of 2022, a regular pick of probate court judges across the
state, to serve as conservator and assume control of Tobin’s care and
finances.
Barbara
and Robert Tobin, her son, had recently renovated Barbara’s Milford
home, but were not quite sure what they would do with it next. A month
after Exner was appointed, the home was sold to Fairfield resident
Joseph Garin. Garin then went on to sell the home six months later for
$60,100 more than he bought it for.
Barbara
Tobin has disputed in probate hearings and interviews how willing she
was to sell the home originally, first telling the judge she felt
coerced into the sale in January 2023. The sale came without approval
from the probate court, which conservators are required by state law to get, and without disclosing any connection she had to the buyer.
Exner would later testify during a hearing that she did not know Garin beyond a college math class they took together.
Unknown
to the Tobins and their lawyer was that in November 2021, five months
before the sale, Exner had set up a company with Garin, according to Secretary of the State records.
They are listed as the business principals with the same business and
residential address in Westport, with Exner’s married name, Sullivan,
listed in the filings.
The
Tobins have been on a three-year mission to get the house back,
navigating the probate court process to have Exner removed as
conservator, which she was in late 2022, and working to recoup financial
compensation.
“Everything
that’s happened since has been an unimaginable violation of the life
she worked so hard to build,” said Robert Tobin, who became Barabra’s
conservator in 2023 and filed an ongoing lawsuit in state Superior Court alleging elder financial exploitation and neglect of Barbara Tobin by Exner.
“I
cannot comment on active litigation, and will not engage in a back and
forth on the filings of Mr. Kirschbaum,” Exner said, referring to Robert
Tobin’s lawyer Damon Kirschbaum, in an email response to questions
about the Tobin case.
“Simply
because someone creates an LLC does not mean that they did any
business,” Exner’s attorney Christopher Harrington said in a probate
conference this week. Exner had previously testified in 2024 to having
not had any contact with Garin since college.
A
review by CT Insider shows this was not the only time Exner, as court
appointed fiduciary, sold a home to Garin without disclosing the
relationship to the probate court, according to court and land records.
In the other sale in 2023, Garin resold the property three months later
for $150,000 more than he bought it for.
Attempts by CT Insider to reach Garin by phone and email were unsuccessful.
The
probate judge on the case has since reported the Tobins’ concerns
about Exner’s conduct as fiduciary to the state’s bar committee after
recently learning of the business connected with Garin.
Among the hundreds of conservatorships Exner has been assigned is the conservatorship of “S,” the man held captive in a Waterbury home by his stepmother for more than two decades. Exner was appointed in March to manage his medical care and a GoFundMe donation fund dedicated to his recovery that has now reached $337,773.
“For
a number of years I have been requested by the Probate Courts as
Conservator around the State of Connecticut for complex and extreme
abuse cases,” Exner said in a statement. “Many times the cases involve
family members committing abuse and exploitation. Being a Conservator in
this capacity is an extremely difficult, challenging, and sometimes
physically dangerous role. I also serve as an attorney for many
individuals with mental health needs and believe strongly in advocating
for their rights, along with protecting the rights of conserved
individuals and helping them achieve independence.”
“My role as Conservator for S is to protect his safety and well-being, and that is what I am doing,” Exner continued.
Her
role in the Tobin sale is facing heightened scrutiny after it was
recently learned that Exner and Garin started a business together months
before the first sale. Kirschbaum submitted a request to have Exner referred for both criminal prosecution and disbarment by the probate court.
Concerns
about Exner’s conduct in the sale of Barbara Tobin’s house surfaced in a
probate administration executive committee meeting last week. In the
meeting, the president of the committee, Judge Michael Darby, told the
room of probate judges that both he and the probate administrator Judge
Beverly Streit were reviewing a letter sent to them by the Tobins’
lawyer on the matter.
The Tobins
were shocked to learn of the quick second sale of the home at a higher
price when it happened in October 2022, they said. The Milford-Orange
Probate Judge Ben Gettinger required Exner to pay Barbara Tobin $40,100
for the difference between the fair market value and the sale price of
the home, according to a March decree.
Exner
accepted the first offer on the home before the property was
"adequately marketed” and without “any meaningful negotiation,” Judge
Gettinger wrote in the decision. The sale also lacked mandatory approval
from the probate court that would have granted Exner the ability to
sell the home after determining the sale was in the best interest of
Barbara Tobin.
As
far as Tobin’s full estate goes, the judge noted that there was no
evidence Exner “committed or engaged in the theft, fraud, embezzlement
or the misappropriation of any estate funds.” While the connection
between Exner and Garin was questioned during a hearing as part of the
termination process, it was not mentioned in the order.
Exner
testified that she did not know Garin beyond the class together at the
United States Merchant Marine Academy, and did not disclose their
company, Mariners Investments. Mariners happens to be the name of sports
teams at the Marine Academy where Exner and Garin attended college.
Exner
said in her testimony that she did not know he intended to flip the
property months later. She testified to have not been aware of the
second sale of the home, the hearing recording shows, despite her
signature as a witness on the deed.
Connecticut’s conservator standards of practice, listed on the probate administration website,
require that conservators avoid conflicts of interest when making
decisions for the people in their care. The Standards also require that
conservators gain court approval when entering into a transaction that
may be a conflict of interest. State law requires conservators to adhere to the Standards of Practice.
Exner
said in a statement to CT Insider that Connecticut statutes do not
require the disclosure of a relationship to another attorney or a buyer
in the sale of real property. Probate attorneys interviewed by CT
Insider, however, said that a conservator who sells property to a friend
or business partner without disclosing that relationship to the court
would violate conservator standards of practice and governing statutes.
Conflicts of interest
Exner
and Garin registered their company, Mariners Investments, five months
before Garin purchased Barbara Tobin’s house for $334,900 in April of
2022.
It
is not clear whether Exner and Garin maintained communication during
the time period after Exner graduated from the academy in 2000 and
before they formed the LLC. The LLC used the same email for Garin listed
on real estate agreements for Barbara Tobin’s home.
Exner
and her legal associate Vincenzo Gallo signed as witnesses on the deed
for the second sale of the property six months later for $395,000,
according to Milford land records.
Vincenzo
Gallo and Exner worked together at Gallo’s law firm, Gallo and
Associates, until 2023, and have worked on legal matters together in the
years since, according to probate records. Gallo and Exner are both
listed as principals on a now-dissolved car sale company they set up
together in 2023, according to Secretary of State records,
and their law firms have shared addresses and phone numbers. Attempts
by CT Insider to reach Gallo by phone and email were unsuccessful.
Exner
sold another home to Garin in December of 2023 as the court-appointed
fiduciary of Southbury resident Mary Maier, who had died in 2017,
according to probate court records and land records. Exner was appointed
by the court to execute Maier’s trust and estate on behalf of Maier’s
daughter, who Exner was a court appointed fiduciary for at the time.
Exner
did not disclose her relationship to Garin to the probate court,
according to court documents. Garin bought Maier’s house for $100,000
and sold it four months later in April of 2024 for $250,000, property
records show.
Legal
associates of Exner’s, namely her employee and an employee of the law
firm Gallo and Associates that she has shared an address with, are
listed in land records as witnesses to both sales.
Exner said in a statement to CT Insider that she was not associated with the second sale and that all probate procedures were followed in Maier’s probate case. Exner did not complete an application to the court to sell the home, according to probate records.
One day after Garin resold Maier’s house for $150,000 more than he bought it for, Exner testified in a probate court hearing on the Tobin case that she had not had any contact with Garin since college.
“We didn’t run in the same circles,” Exner said in the hearing. She removed herself as an agent on the investment firm she registered with Garin a month after she testified, Connecticut public business records show.
When asked in the hearing why she failed to gain the necessary probate court approval for the sale of Tobin’s house, Exner said in court that she misinterpreted the rules and was sorry she didn’t bring the sale before the court.
“I made a mistake,” she said.
Probate system questions
Conservators are appointed by the Connecticut Probate Courts to manage and oversee the financial affairs or care of a person that is either unable or incapable of doing so themselves.
Connecticut conservators, bound to the state’s Standards of Practice, have a duty to act in the best interest of the conserved person when managing their finances.
Speaking
generally, attorney Evan Brunetti of the Office of the Probate Court
Administrator, a state office that oversees and supports the state’s
probate courts, said that it is the responsibility of the conservators
themselves to be forthcoming when applying in probate court to sell a
conserved person's home.
“If
they were hiding that someone was their business partner, it would be a
violation of probate law,” said Brunetti. “The application is under
penalty of perjury if they don’t disclose it.”
The
conservator, when filing the petition to the probate court, must
disclose any conflicts of interest they may have with the buyer and gain
court approval for any transaction that may benefit themselves or a
related party.
“We’re trying to prevent self-dealing,” Brunetti said.
Connecticut’s
Long Term Care Ombudsman Mairead Painter said in an interview that her
office is generally aware of concerns from conserved people about
financial exploitation by conservators during home sales.
“The
risk of financial exploitation is always there,” said Painter, who said
she is concerned that probate court judges are not always made aware of
all necessary information by conservators.
Even
though someone may have a conservator and no longer be making their own
financial decisions, they need to be kept aware and included in the
decision making process alongside the court, Painter explained.
“People don’t lose their rights as citizens when they go into a nursing home,” Painter said.
Brunetti
explained that it is the responsibility of the probate judges
themselves to oversee matters of conservator conduct on a case by case
basis, and that the probate judge administration has no overarching
disciplinary abilities.
When
the administration learns of an attorney’s disbarment, however, they
will send a notice to the courts informing them that the individual is
no longer able to be compensated by state funds as a
conservator, Brunetti said.
In the motion filed last week
in Milford probate court, Kirschbaum requested that Exner be referred
to the Office of the State’s Attorney in Milford for prosecution and be
disbarred.
“Kristan
Exner had a legal duty to help and protect Barbara Tobin. Instead, she
financially abused and exploited Barbara,” Kirschbaum said in an
interview
“I
filed the motion for disbarment to help protect other vulnerable people
from Exner,” said Kirschbaum, who then spoke highly of Judge Gettinger
who will be ruling on the motion in the coming weeks.
“I am confident that he will promptly do what must be done to protect people,” he said.
For Barbara and Robert Tobin, the stress of the ongoing cases regarding their Milford home has been extreme.
“I love my mom with all my heart,” Robert said. “She was fully capable
of living a peaceful, comfortable retirement before this nightmare began
more than three years ago.”
