May 2019

In 2006, William Bassford executed a Trust entitled the “William W. Bassford Irrevocable Trust.”  Despite the title of the Trust, the Trust stated in Article Two that “notwithstanding anything herein contained, the Settlor explicitly reserves the following powers … (5) to revoke this Trust ….”  This Trust owned the home that William lived in along with his third wife, Frances.

William had three adult children: Andrew, Zelda and Jonathan.  The children’s mother died many years ago.   William later married Frances and their marriage lasted for 33 years until he died.  Sometime before William died, he suffered from several illnesses which included severe anxiety and depression, post-traumatic stress disorder from his service during World War II, mild to moderate dementia, impaired hearing and frequent urinary tract infections.  As a result of his health issues, William was hospitalized at a residential psychiatric facility.  In October of 2011, Frances filed an application for the appointment of an involuntary conservator of her husband’s person and estate.  Following a hearing, a Connecticut Probate Court appointed her to be her husband’s conservator.

On June 25, 2012, William’s trustees (who were two, long-time friends of his) conveyed the home that he lived in, from the Trust to William, so that the Trust no longer owned the property.  The property was now owned by him.  He also revoked the “Irrevocable  Trust” on this date.  William did this in conjunction with a new Will that he executed on May 7, 2012.  In this Will, he left various items of personal property to Andrew and Zelda, as well as to some of his grandchildren.  He also left $1.00 to his son Jonathan.  The remainder of his estate was left to Frances, his wife of 33 years.   William died on February 19, 2014.

After his death, his children petitioned the Probate Court where they asked the Court to construe the Trust.  The children sought a decree from the Court which declared that the Trust was irrevocable.  If the Court agreed with the children, that would invalidate the trustees’ conveyance of the property from the Trust to William.  It would also invalidate William’s revocation of his own Trust.  The Probate Court found pursuant to Article Two of the Trust, that the Trust was revocable and that William was capable of receiving title to his home.  The Court made this finding despite the fact that William was conserved by his wife.  The children then brought an appeal to the Connecticut Superior Court.  Among the issues on appeal were whether the Trust was irrevocable and whether the revocation of that Trust was improper.

During the trial in the Superior Court, the Court looked to the facts surrounding the revocation of the Trust.  On June 14, 2012 – months after Frances was appointed by the Probate Court to conserve her husband – William was hospitalized at a psychiatric facility.  Although the medical records revealed that he was feeling anxious, depressed, confused and that he reported suicidal ideations, he was also alert and oriented as to person, place and time.  After his admission, his attorney visited him at the facility.  She brought her husband with her to act as a witness.  The attorney testified that she spoke to William for about 20 minutes that day and that he was alert and not confused.  She told him that upon his discharge from the facility, his written Trust revocation was ready for his signature.  The attorney testified that William was eager to sign the revocation because he felt that the new Will that he signed approximately one month before, would not have the effect that he desired unless the Trust was also revoked.  She also testified that she reviewed the provisions of the Trust with him, specifically the provision which gave him the right to revoke the Trust.  One week later, William signed the written revocation of his Trust before his attorney.

The Superior Court concluded that William had a thorough discussion with his attorney and that he thought about the revocation of his Trust for over three months before his actual revocation.  Taking these facts in conjunction with the preparation of his new Will, the Court determined that William’s desire to complete his estate plan had not wavered or changed in all that time and that he was not confused about the revocation in any way. 

As part of the process of creating his estate plan, William was also evaluated by a psychiatrist.  In late April of 2012, William met with him for a formal clinical interview.  Prior to this interview, the psychiatrist reviewed William’s medical history.  At trial, he testified that while William had dementia, his particular dementia was progressing slowly.  In addition, the psychiatrist testified that William had memory deficits and episodes of delirium during those times when he suffered from urinary tract infections.  Nevertheless, William’s treatment history proved that when he was treated for his urinary tract infections, he returned to lucidity quickly and functioned at a stable level.  Ultimately, the psychiatrist testified that in his professional opinion, William possessed the cognitive ability to know the nature and extent of his assets and how he wanted to dispose of them.

The Court also found that prior to his execution of the revocation, William directed his attorney to contact the trustees of his Trust, to let them know what he desired.  William’s attorney sent both of them a letter advising the trustees that he wished to revoke the Trust and that he wanted title to the property to be conveyed to him.  The letter also directed the Trustees to personally confer with William’s psychiatrist regarding his capacity to execute his Will.  The trustees testified that upon receiving this letter, they spoke to his psychiatrist.  They also testified that they visited William after he was hospitalized.  Both of them testified that he appeared to be his normal self and that he was able to carry on an intelligent conversation with them about his wishes.  Finally, the trustees testified that after this visit, they signed the written revocation themselves.

The Superior Court concluded that William was not confused or uncertain about what he was doing but rather, that he independently determined to proceed with the revocation of his Trust and the conveyance of his property.  Thus, he had the mental capacity legally required to effectuate this transaction.  This decision was subsequently appealed to the Connecticut Appellate Court.  The name of the case is Bassford vs. Bassford, 180 Conn.App. 331 (2018).  On appeal, that court examined the record, as well as the briefs and arguments of the parties and concluded that the judgment of the Superior Court should be affirmed.

In Bassford, three separate courts concluded that the “revocation” language of the Trust was clear and that despite how the Trust was titled, this was a revocable Trust.  In addition, the Court found that under the facts of this case, an involuntarily conserved person could revoke his Trust. 

The facts of this case are unique.  Many lawyers would argue that William’s Trust was poorly drafted, insofar as the ambiguity it created for William and his family.  The lesson from Bassford is that the language of a trust is more important than the title.  At Cipparone & Zaccaro, we exercise extreme caution when drafting Trusts.  If you would like to talk to us about preparing your estate plan, please don’t hesitate to give us a call.  We’ll take great care to put together a clear, thoughtful estate plan for you so you can avoid this kind of litigation.