Bench Trial Clears Attorney of Mishandling Estate Eviction

A Stamford Superior Court judge ruled there was nothing wrong with the way attorney Thomas Drew handled the eviction proceedings.

This premium content is reserved for Connecticut subscribers.

Continue reading by getting started with a subscription.

Already a subscriber? Log in now

What's being said

  • Connie L. Grant

    The executor of my mother‘s estate--who was removed by the Darien probate judge for not performing his fiduciary duty AND for wasting the estate--had no POWER or AUTHORITY, as Judge Heller claims, to sell our family home. He was to simply and expeditiously--as is common in any estate--carry out the testator‘s wishes. Drew, on the other hand, went to extreme lengths to bill the estate over $100,000 which consisted of one house (no mortgage) and an auto. If handled correctly, the home was to be distributed to the four beneficiaries outright. Instead, Drew decided in bad faith and incorrectly to use a moot paragraph in a Trust THAT NEVER EXISTED, requiring a unanimous agreement by the four beneficiaries on what to do with the real estate. There was never a trust, hence no trust language. See The Honorable Judge David A Tobin‘s Memorandum of Decision October 2015.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202790269785

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.

Recommended for You