Son evicting 98yr old Mom

[sadie1263]

FAIRFIELD -- The last thing Mary Kantorowski thought she would have to worry about in her golden years was having a place to live.

After all, her husband, a machinist, had worked two jobs for dozens of years just so he, his wife and their two sons could live comfortably in their Flax Road home. But here it was on her 98th birthday that Mary is now facing eviction -- at the hands of her eldest son, Peter Kantorowski.

"This is just a despicable situation," said Richard Bortolot Jr., a Stratford lawyer appointed by Fairfield Probate Judge Daniel Caruso to represent Mary Kantorowski. "Mary has been living here happily paying all the expenses for the house and now her son, Peter, comes along and is telling her, `Get the hell out,' so he can sell it."

A trial on Peter Kantorowski's efforts to evict his mother is scheduled for March 2 in Superior Court in Bridgeport.

Peter Kantorowski, 71, a retired taxidermist who lives in Trumbull, said the reason he is trying to evict his mother from the home she has lived in since 1953 is that it's for her own good.

"She would be better off living with people her own age," he said.

The small, yellow Cape Cod-style house is the kind you might travel over the river and through the woods to visit. The inside is neat as a pin with the kind of homey touches one might expect to find in a grandmother's house, including a large plate over the stove that simply reads, "Mom's Kitchen." The house has been assessed at $333,410.

Mary Kantorowski was clearly uncomfortable with the attention during an interview at her home Tuesday, preferring to talk about the pierogies she used to hand roll for church dinners than the predicament she is facing at the hands of her oldest son.

"My husband worked hard, difficult jobs to buy this house. He built the garage and did a lot of work on the house and he told me never to leave it," she said.

According to Probate Court records, in 1996 Mary and her husband, John, agreed to transfer the house to a trust administered by Peter Kantorowski on the condition that Mary would live there until her death, and upon her death, the house would go to Peter and his younger brother, Jack. However, in July 2005, Peter Kantorowski quitclaimed the house from that trust to another he and his wife control, giving him ownership of the house.

On Dec. 13, 2011, his mother's 98th birthday, Peter Kantorowski had his mother served with eviction papers.

Bortolot, who is not being paid to represent Mary Kantorowski, said shortly after serving his mother with eviction papers, Peter Kantorowski attempted to put the house up for sale. He was stopped by subsequent Probate Court proceedings. During one of those proceedings, it was determined Peter Kantorowski had wrongly taken on his mother's power of attorney, using her money for his expenses.

Judge Caruso at one point went to Mary Kantorowski's home and talked to her about the situation. He later ruled she is competent to handle her own affairs following an examination by a geriatric specialist and with Mary's agreement, hired Bortolot to handle her affairs.

The eviction has not only caused friction between Mary and Peter, it has split the two brothers, with Jack Kantorowski siding with his mother.

The younger Kantorowski, who said he and his fiancee visit his mother twice a week, said his brother once told him he felt their mother had lived too long.

Peter Kantorowski said he believes his brother and fiancee have been fleecing their mother, an allegation Jack denies.

Although Peter Kantorowski said he has not seen his mother in about eight months, he said when he did visit he found her to be living in poor conditions and appeared disoriented.

"She may be better now, I don't know, but I was alarmed at the conditions she was living in. I always believed she could live there as long as she wanted and as long as she knows what is going on, but she is now 98 and has more cloudy days than sunny days," he said.

He acknowledged that during court sessions, he recommended his mother go into a nursing home under the federal Title XIX. "I just feel she would be better off with people her age in her golden years," he said.

Peter Kantorowski said he has invited his mother to come live with him, but she has refused.

"I have this big house in Trumbull and she is welcome to come live with me," he said. "I took care of my mother-in-law until she died in my house."



Read more: www.ctpost.com/news/article/Son-wants-to-evict-98-year-old-mom-3337069.php#ixzz1menXeVTz

[sadie1263]

There was an agreement to let her live there until her death....he's gone back on that......the house was to be left to both sons.....he's gone back on that.......he hasn't seen her in 8 months.....but doesn't think she is doing well........

What a complete arse!! I hope he is removed from any chance of inheritance!!!!

[sadie1263]

More and more people are having to deal with elderly parents and what their needs are and what is the best choice for them........

How well do people do treading that line of what is best for the parent.....and what is best for them?

[lakshmi]

Next birth he better be a snake and smell dirt for his life

[Deleted]

Feb 17, 2012 16:27:30 GMT sadie1263 said:

There was an agreement to let her live there until her death....he's gone back on that......the house was to be left to both sons.....he's gone back on that.......he hasn't seen her in 8 months.....but doesn't think she is doing well........

What a complete arse!! I hope he is removed from any chance of inheritance!!!!

So far as I can tell it was more than an "agreement"; it was written into the trust.

I have no idea how trust law works in the States, so could somone explain what quitclaim means, and how this could happen:

"However, in July 2005, Peter Kantorowski quitclaimed the house from that trust to another he and his wife control, giving him ownership of the house."

[sadie1263]

(as per Wikipedia)

A quitclaim deed (sometimes erroneously referred to as a "quick-claim" deed) is a legal instrument by which the owner of a piece of real property, called the grantor, transfers his interest to a recipient, called the grantee.[1] The owner/grantor terminates (“quits”) his right and claim to the property, thereby allowing claim to transfer to the recipient/grantee.

Unlike most other property deeds, a quitclaim deed contains no title covenant and thus, offers the grantee no warranty as to the status of the property title; the grantee is entitled only to whatever interest the grantor actually possesses at the time the transfer occurs.[2] This means that the grantor does not guarantee that he actually owns the property at the time of the transfer, or if he does own it, that the title is free and clear. It is therefore possible for a grantee to receive no actual interest, and – because a quitclaim deed offers no warranty – have no legal recourse to recover their losses. Further, if the grantor should acquire the property at a later date, the grantee is not entitled to take possession, because the grantee can only receive the interest the grantor held at the time the transfer occurred. In contrast, other deeds often used for real estate sales (called grant deeds or warranty deeds, depending on the jurisdiction) contain warranties from the grantor to the grantee that the title is clear and/or that the grantor has not placed any encumbrance against the title.
Because of this lack of warranty, quitclaim deeds are most often used to transfer property between family members, as gifts, placing personal property into a business entity (and vice-versa) or in other special or unique circumstances. Quitclaim deeds are rarely used to transfer property from seller to buyer in a traditional property sale; in most cases, the grantor and grantee have an existing relationship or is the same person.[3]

[sadie1263]

Just don't see how he could do it.....it belonged in a trust that involved his mother and his brother. So how was he able to (by himself) just give the property to himself??

Seems the other brother should be going after him also!!