Representative Arthur J. O'Neill, Chairman
William R. Breetz
Representative Robert Farr
Jon P. Fitzgerald
Robert W. Grant
Representative Michael P. Lawlor
Michael W. Lyons
Mary Anne O'Neill
Joel I. Rudikoff
Edmund F. Schmidt
Joseph J. Selinger, Jr.
Judge Elliot N. Solomon
Professor Colin C. Tait
Professor Terry J. Tondro
I. Milton Widem
Senator Donald E. Williams, Jr.

Seal-blue4.jpg (4041 bytes)

David D. Biklen
Executive Director

David L. Hemond
Chief Attorney

Jo A. Roberts
Senior Attorney

Connecticut Law Revision Commission
State Capitol
Room 509A
Hartford, Connecticut 06106-1591
(860) 240-0220
FAX (860) 240-0322
Email: lrc@po.state.ct.us


To:   Members of Law Revision Commission Probate Committee
From:   David L. Hemond
Date:   October 27, 1999
Re:   Approval of proposed drafts, actions at October meeting, proposal re appointment of guardian


At the Probate Committee meeting on October 21, the Committee approved a proposed amendment to section 45a-92(g), changing the income reporting date from the first day of March to the first day of April. The Committee also tentatively approved a proposed technical amendment to section 17a-11 (voluntary admissions) to avoid a confusing interplay of language between subsection (d), concerning the 12 month dispositional hearing, and subsection (h), which allows transfer of the file for cause. Approval of the section 17a-11 language, however, was contingent on further review by the Probate Court Administrator's Office. I have reviewed and revised the draft with Linda Dow of that office. Copies of those two drafts are enclosed. I am requesting your final approval of those drafts. If you have comments or corrections or matters concerning the drafts that require further discussion or action, please call me by November 11th at 240-0220.

The Committee also considered the following matters:

1. Permitting banks to appear in Probate Courts without counsel. After considerable discussion, this issue was deferred for the time being in the light of the recent streamlining of court procedures which may substantially reduce the need for the uncontested hearings where the issue of the need for appearance without counsel arises.

2. Waiving the fee for applications by a licensed funeral director for custody of the body in pauper burial cases. Pursuant to that discussion, I prepared a draft (enclosed) of what such a fee waiver might look like. However, Judge Kurmay has asked that we defer action on this proposal until next year to allow him to review current practice. Unless there is objection, this matter will be deferred.

3. Glenn Knierim suggested allowing appointment by a parent, through an instrument other than a will, of a guardian for the parent's minor children to take effect on death of the parent. I was asked to review this issue and prepare a draft.

My research disclosed the following:

Section 45a-596 currently allows appointment of such a guardian by will but does not authorize such an appointment through a nontestamentary instrument.

Section 45a-624 allows appointment by designation in a nontestamentary instrument of a standby guardian to take effect on the principal's death. That provision establishes the precedent for allowing such a nontestamentary designation. However, authority under a standby guardianship is limited to a period of one year under section 45a-624d.

The concept of allowing such a nontestamentary designation of a regular guardian is not new. Such a designation, for example, is expressly authorized by section 5-202 of the Uniform Probate Code (1993 Text). The concept is continued in the proposed 1998 draft revisions of that section.

I believe the recommendation to be sound and the issue to be noncontroversial. Current law already recognizes both the parent's authority to appoint the guardian and recognizes the parent's authority to make a similar appointment outside of the will. Such a nontestamentary appointment is already recommended by the Uniform Laws Conference.

I am enclosing a proposed draft that would amend section 45a-596 to allow such an appointment.

If we are to recommend this proposal for this session, I think that an additional committee meeting should be scheduled as soon as possible. While that can be done, I would like some input from the committee before I impose on you again this year for this single item. Because the authority to appoint already exists, I do not think that there is an urgent need for action. Moreover, there may be concerns that I have not identified. On the other hand, there is no time like the present. If you have any thoughts concerning the desirability of a meeting to take up this matter, please give me a call before November 9. Any meeting would probably be scheduled for the week of the 15th.

Thanks.

Proposed Drafts Concerning:

 

Probate Committee Home                                                                                                         Home