Preview
Certified Mail No.: 7019 1120 0002 0627 3120
Docket No.:
Raymond Panigutti vs. Fairfield Probate Court & Louis Panigutti
AMENDED RETURN
STATE OF CONNECTICUT: ‘
SS: Bridgeport December 4, 2019
" COUNTY OF FAIRFIELD:
Afterwards on the 4" Day of December, 2019, I received the original envelope WITHOUT the
green card attached returned back to me marked “REFUSED” requested for Certified Mail No.:
7019 1120 0002 0627 3120 addressed to Louis Panigutti, 4602 County Road 673 688, Bushnel, FL
33513 which is attached hereto:Christopher Paoletti, State Marshal
3301 Main Suce
Bridgeport, CT 06606
a. S4O0O6928893329178
CHINN
7 1120 ooo2 Oke? 3120
Louis Panigutti
4602 County Road 673 688 Pt
Bushnel, F1.33513 OV
NIXLE 787 DE:
REF BCI
BEGGG>4235
RETL
oY
Les |
@G21/25/19
N ies SENDER
EFUS
UNABLE re PORWARD
“@6E66423361
taletenel ta tated ah
*B593-OL482225
oDgppleglgusuaf gt fap UL Lely
29Certified Mail No. 7019 1120 0002 0627 3120
Docket No.
Raymond Panigutti vs. Fairfield Probate Court & Louis Panigutti
STATE OF CONNECTICUT:
SS: Bridgeport November 6, 2019
COUNTY OF FAIRFIELD:
Afterwards on the 6" day of November, 2019, I received the signed return receipt returned to me
requested for certified mail no. 7019 1120 0002 0627 3120 as addressed to Louis Panigutti,
4602County Road 673688, Bushnel, FL 33513 which is attached hereto:
as!
Fairfield County
-OPUUOULUUOSAROUTTU TENT 2 oon
1’ 590 9402 5266 9154 4606 37 ~~ |BESttod Nat Restcte Door
| ws a E1-Collect on Delivery
. SORES STOTT SanIpR Tah). A Coleet on Delivery Resticted Dell
[* "70nd 120 0002 Dee? 3420 say
1TpS Form 3811, July 2016 PSN 7630-02-000-0059.SUMMONS - CIVIL ) :
JD-CY-1 Rev. 4-16 A inen ded) STATE OF CON
C.G.S, §§ 51-346, 51-347, 51-349, 51-350, $2-45a,
52-48, 52-259, P.B. §§ 3-4 through 3-21, 8-1, 10-13 w
See other side for instructions
Oo "X" if amount, lege interest or property in demand, not including interest and
costs is less than $2,500.
“X" if amount, legal interest or property in demand, not including interest and.
costs is $2,500 or more.
oO “X" if-claiming other relief in addition to or in lieu of money or damages.
TO: Any proper officer; BY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT, you are hereby commanded to make di
this Summons and attached Complaint.
SUPERIOR)
le and leg
ECTICUT}
COURT
-jud.ct.go)
I servicelof ~
‘Address of court clerk where writ and other papers shall be filed (Number, street, town and zip code) | Telephone number of clerk Return Dat
(C.G.S. §§ 51-346, 51-350) (with area code)
fe (Must be a Tuesday)
J06) ty 47 BRIPCEQORT (23 \S7H6S27 | Save 4
12
i
‘Judicial District GA At ne in which writ is returnable) {C.G.S. §§ 51-346, 51-349) . Case type
Housing Session Oo Number. $ eo Major:
ode (See list}on page 2
inor:
For the Plaintiff(s) please enter the appearance of:
Name an We of a:tomey, law firm or piaintiff if self-represented (Number, street, town and zip code) ris numb|
Yr vO (AWb0TT AALYO AMS # IP 252, pei 7
tse,
(lo be entered by attorney erly)
Ih number (wi: area code) Signoture of Plaintiff (if selrepresented)
(bc) F700 CRG FRATATNAK THAILAMO 2oOISO
rand Roti, >
The attorney or law firm appearing for the plaintiff, or the plaintiff if Email address for delivery of Lb rong 10-18 (if saree Lv
self-represented, agrees to accept papers (service) electronically in De Y No
this case under Section 10-13 of the Connecticut Practice Book. es PAN / GAUry ; Al Edi TY| CO*
Number of Plaintiffs: Number of Defendants: Oo Form JD-CV-2 attached for additional patties
Parties Name (Last, First, Middle Initial) and Address of Each party (Number; Street; P.O. Box; Town; State; Zip; Country, if not USA)
First Name: AAPL LO ACAET x 2G P-01
Plaintify | Address: PAM) GUTTI, GAY moao S2/6G9-70 prix, Sp! 4.
Additional | Name: P-02
Plaintift | Address: : PATA NAK, THAILAND bo) Se
First Name: D-0f
Defendant [Address: Eg PFIEL DO (e0BATE cower 725 e2€e ~T Rp) FLA
Additional | Name: “el Bey D-02
Defendant | Address: PAA) (su TTI, £ oust * >
‘Additional | Name: 7 _~ 0-03
Defendant | Address: OY60x~ Couns €0O 478 k PEE FLIES /2
7 >
Additional | Name: . .. x D-04
[= Defendant | Address: @ 2632. ° St eh Bi aS) ei ald
Notice to Each Defendant Cig’
4. YOU ARE BEING SUED. This paper is a Summons in a lawsuit. The complaint attached to these fibers
against you in this lawsuit.
2. To be notified of further proceedings, you or your attorney must file a form called an "Appearance" witiy
Court-address on or before the second day after the above Return Date. The Return Date is not a hearing date. Y« lave:
Return Date unless you receive a separate notice telling you to come to court.
3. If you or your attorney do not file a written "Appearance" form on time, a judgment may be entered against you by def . The “A
obtained at the Court address above or at www.jud.ct.gov under "Court Forms."
4. If you believe that you have insurance that may cover the claim that is being made against you in this lawsuit, you should immed
SR
&
2
\ppearance"
Bye!
Ainge Org es plaintiff i mening
s ‘iy BS hea Court at
ito come to court on the
the above
form may}
lately contact your
e
insurance representative. Other action you may have to take is described in the Connecticut Practice Book which may be found ih a superior|court law
library or on-line at www-jud.ct.gov under "Court Rules." .
5. If you have questions about the Summons and Complaint, you should talk to an attorney quickly. The Clerk of Court is not allgwed to givd advice on
legal questions.
Signed (Sign and "x" proper box) GoraTissoner ofthe T Name of Person Signing at Left =~ Date mee i
fem orunn [Dd Assistant Clerk dems Lerusse rola ly
If this Summons is signed by a Clerk: For Court Use Only|
a. The signing has been done so that the Plaintiff(s) will not be denied access to the courts. File Date
b. Itis the responsibility of the Plaintiff(s) to see that service is made in the manner provided by law.
c. The Clerk is not permitted to give any legal advice in connection with any lawsuit.
d. The Clerk signing this Summons at the request of the Plaintiff(s) is not responsible in any way for any errors or omissions
in the Summons, any allegations contained in the Complaint, or the service of the Summons or Complaint.
' certify | have read and | Signy ‘Represented Plaintiff * WN Date Docket Number
understand the above: owed On COA) Oct 24,299] CY-19- SoyoBY 9-4]
5, :
Cage tof 2)“The plaintiff is not an attorney ‘but is pro sea and believe the Decree on page 5, Schedule B-
"$169,565, to be based on narrow and incomplete opinion. See Decreé attached.
“N
Anes eV
Appeal of Probate Court Decree for Repayment of "Rohinsky" Loan interest
and “compound interest" for $100,000 personal venture, total $169,565
April 30, 2019
To: Clerk of the Superior Court
1
Re: Appeal Probate court of Fairfield vs. Louis Panigutti
Contents: °
1) Aggrievance Appeal
2) Summary background. .
3) Plaintiff Appeal request. _
1) Aggrievance Appeal:
The plaintiff, Raymond Panigutti, of the Mary Panigutti Revocable Trust dated Jul
aggrieved by the Probate Court Decree of 11/2/2018 attached.
1 To Louis Panigutti Repayment of Rohinsky Loan and interest, and compound int
2) Summary background:
In 2002, The Marios', {cousins of the Paniguttis' (Louis, John and Raymond)}, co
Properties (50% interest) with Mary Panigutti, our mother. These two properties
escrow with a developer. During this time, Louis used his equity line to purchase
adjoining one of these parcels, (a1 & 1/2 acre parcel at Brookside Dr.), for $100
which $50,000 was a loan to the Mario’s. This 1/2'acre parcel was then merged in
larger lot and was expected to enhance the sale. The sale went sour and ended in
y 2009, is
prest-
wned two
vere in,
a 1/2 acre
000, of
‘0 this
Court by;the developer. This purchase by Louis turned out to be a bad investment, as the m
was never recovered. Louis never consulted with Raymond or John Panigutti to ma
investment.
There was no written promissory note for this transaction with the Mario's, and no
“agreements other than the Mario's would reimburse Louis for. their $50,000 at close of
escrow. No interest was discussed, as Louis expected to get reimbursed his $100,000 at
the escrow closing expected within the year.
joney
e this
erbal
Louis furthermore put the deed to this 1/2 acre parcel that he personally purchased in the
Mario.name, without authorization from the Mario's family.
The escrow failed, and ended in Court by the developer against the Mario's and Maiy
Panigutti. The Marios spent attorney fees and a payoff settlement to the developer for a
total of $105,000. As such, the Marios said they do not owe Louis their 1/2 share due of
$50,000, and defaulted on their $50,000 to Louis.
Louis filed against them in Court for the reimbursement of the $50,000 and hired his
own personal attorney to recover this. (Note: There was no separate motion included in
Lou's motion to Superior Court for any interest on the $50,000 loan to the Mario's that Lou
thought he was owed, as thére was no promissory note or verbal agreement).
The matter was dropped when the Mary Panigutti Limited partnership bought out the
Marios' interest in the properties many years later.
Louis approximately ten years later took from the Mary Paniqutti Trust the entire $100,000
($50,000 of which was a personal Joan to the Mario's, and his $50,000 loan, plus
another $51,601 interest calculated at the rate of 5% per year, plus another $17,968 as
“compound interest", totaling $69,565 in interest.
Louis therefore has used Trust funds to pay himself for a personal venture in 2002! long
before the Trust was formed in 2009.
The original Objection filed with the Fairfield Probate Court was against Louis reim bursing
himself the $51,601 calculated interest and $17,968 "compound interest". Judge
Probate Judge, ruled that Lou was due the $100,000 loan, $51,601 calculated interest and
$17,968 “compound interest", totaling $169,565.
Note: There was never any agreement for any of this, 1.e. interest, compound int
including the original $50,000 loan to the Mario's and Lou's $50,000 loan. There
promissory note memorializing such transaction with the Mario's or John Panigutti
Raymond Panigutti, and no verbal agreements with anyone regarding interest.
There was never any verbal or written documents to suggest that the debt was a:
Anthon
rest,
as no
and
sumed by
the Trust after it's formation, even though the asset was under it's control.Clearly there was no mention of interest owed to Louis in the Trust document, or a
y_other
documents.
3) Plaintiff Appeal request.
The Trust specifically provides in Article III, Paragraph B:
"No child of the Grantor, nor any spouse of a child of the Grantor, nor any parent
serves as trustee of a trust where a child of said parent is the sole beneficiary of su
nor any individual designated by his or her name in this Trust instrument who serv)
trustee or co- trustee of this trust Instrument, or of any Trust created under this Ti
Instrument, shall receive any compensation for his or her service as trustee or co-tirustee of
this Trust instrument or any trust created by this Trust instrument...In addition, an|
of this trust instrument, or of any trust created by this trust Instrument, shall be e
reimbursement for any reasonable out of pocket expenses incurred in connection
administration of the Trust instrument or of any trust created herein."
In addition, it is well settled Connecticut law that fiduciaries have a duty to avoid si
dealing in property management and investment decisions, Catanzano v. Catanza’
Conn 478 (1847):
“a) Trustee shall derive no personal advantage from the trust fund and shall not sae his
position directly or indirectly to benefit himself." Clements Appeal 49 Con 519 (18:
Louis, trustee, is not allowed legally to use Trust funds to pay for personal ventur
is what he did.
Note: The statutes cited above were by Judge Anthony's Decree dated Nov. 2,
2018 against Louis for using Trust funds to pay for another personal venture. This
personal venture and Judge Antony's Decree follows:
Louis had additionally taken $66,369 from the Trust for using his personal LLC td pay
development fees for finishing up a family subdivision. The Judge's ruling states...|.
sum of $66,369 must be restored to the Trust by the trustee”, citing the above. S
attached Decree. ( Note: Louis has subsequently appealed this ruling with the Su
Court of Bridgeport and is pending, due for Hearing on Sept. 26, 2019).
1
it appears illegal that Louis reimbursed himself $51,601 calculated interest, and a
$17,968 “compound interest" from the Trust for a $100,000 personal venture, ha
ho
ich trust,
RS as
ust
trustee
titled to}
ith the
elf-
no 127
2).
es, which
lother
"Thel
ee
preme
hother
ing noagreements with our cousin's, the Mario's, or John and Raymond Panigutti, (brothets and
beneficiaries of the Trust).
Accordingly, it is requested that the $51,601 calculated interest, $17,968 "compound
interest", be restored to the Trust.
It is uncertain if it was legal for Louis to reimburse himself from Trust funds for the|persona|
venture to purchase a 1/2 acre, for $100,000, of which $50,000 was a personal loan to the
Mario's, and $50,000 personal funds. If it was illegal for Louis to reimburse
himself the $50,000 loan to the Mario's and Louis's $50,000, then it is requested that these
additional monies also be restored to the Trust by Louis Panigutti.STATE OF CONNECTICUT
DECREE
COURT OF PROBATE
COURT OF PROBATE, DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD DISTRICT #49
IN RE: MARY MARGARET PANIGUTTI REVOCABLE TRUST (14-0112)
Presiding Judge: Hon. Fred J. Antho:
Louis Panigutti filed an accounting in his capacity as trustee of the Mary Margaret
Panigutti Revocable Trust dated July 23, 2009.: Such accounting reflects transactions
June 20, 2013 and June 30, 2018. Raymond Panigutti has filed numerous objections
accounting.
such
The assets held by this Trust included several pieces and parcels of real estate located in
the Town of Fairfield. Mary Margaret Panigutti was a trustee of the Trust, up to her
June 21, 2013.
The accounting shows that at the commencement of the reporting period, the Trust had
assets totaling $1,800,422.00. Ante mortem claims and administrative expenses were|reported|to
be $673,453.00. Further, the accounting shows distributions to beneficiaries and assets on hand
totaling $1,339,676.00.
Mr. Raymond Panigutti, a beneficiary of the Trust, has objected to numerous gntries in
such accounting. The Court shall address objections individually.
Capital Gains Tax Liability
Raymond Panigutti alleges that the transfer of real property to him may result
gains tax liability to him personally. At the ne nearine testimony : showed that no such
wish to pursue such claim.
Scheduled A-2 Additional Assets Received .
Receivable from Raymond Panigutti for Additional Expenses related to February 20,2014
Petition
The accounting, under the heading “Additional Assets Received,” shows a $63,330.00
“receivable” from Raymond Panigutti. This amount has not been adjudicated by any court. The
Fiduciary testified that such amount was calculated and assessed by him. Such amount was
1[Pagecalculated by assessing certain legal and accounting fees already paid, and also estab ishing a
reserve of $20,000.00 for additional fees which may be incurred. The record reflects|that Mr.
Raymond Panigutti petitioned the Court in February 2014 for redress regarding a dispute over
property on Pansy Road. This issue was heard by the Probate Court at a prior hearing, but a
mistrial was subsequently declared. The Court has heard testimony regarding the evdnts and
allegations regarding such transaction, and finds that no credible, persuasive evidence was
submitted which would substantiate the inclusion of a receivable in such accounting for fees,
either incurred or anticipated. The Court finds that a good faith dispute existed.
Accordingly, the trustee may not unilaterally surcharge an amount against said
claimant/beneficiary. The receivable of $63,330.00 shall be stricken from the accounting.
Schedule A-1 Receivable Raymond Panigutti
25’ Extension of Land Purchase
The Trustee, Louis Panigutti, has included a receivable in the amount of $21,000.00 from
Raymond Panigutti. This claim results from an alleged breach of an agreement to purchase such
property from the Trust by Raymond Panigutti. The Court notes that there was no evidence that
a written contract was ever executed for such purchase. Testimony was unclear as to whether
actual deed was accepted by Mr. Raymond Panigutti. Testimony was clear that any such
purported deed was never in the possession of Mr. Raymond Panigutti or recorded uppn the land
records. There was no evidence of any court action or adjudication of the claim by either party,
with regard to this issue.
Accordingly, the Trustee may not unilaterally surcharge Raymond Panigutti in| such
accounting. The Receivable of $21,000.00 is not allowed and is ordered stricken from the
accounting.
Schedule B-6 Receivable Raymond Panigutti
Development Costs for 298 Parisy Road, $8,055
The Trustee, Louis Panigutti reports a receivable from Raymond Panigutti in the amount of
$8,055.00. The Trustee alleges that this amount reflects sums paid from Mary Panigutti’s
accounts in 2012. This is once again, an expense which the Trustee seeks to include ih his
accounting as a receivable without any underlying judgment or adjudication supporting the same.
At best, it is a claim which may have been sought six years ago. The Trustee did not bring suit
on such claim, nor take further action.
Accordingly, such “receivable” is not allowed in such accounting and shall be stricken.
2|PageSchedule B-3 To Louis Panigutti
Return on Risk-reward Venture \
The Trustee, Louis Panigutti reports an entry in his accounting of $100,000.00 paid to
him. This eritry is related to the development of certain property owned by the Trust.
In an attachment to his accounting the Trustee writes, “Louis, rather than for personal
inheritance and not as trustee or as fiduciary, but as an independent venture with persdnal
expense and risk accepted the challenge for possible mutual entrepreneur and Trust banefit.”
The accounting reflects that the total sum of $100,000.00 was paid directly to Louis *
Panigutti. Such amount includes the following expenses:
$38,500.00 | Management fees
27,869.00 Risk-reward fee
8,064.00 . Expenses
Testimony revealed that during this period of development, the property remained in the
name of the trust. Louis Panigutti referred to this property as “his” inhetitance. However, the
property was not distributed as such. .
_Testimony revealed that several developers chose not take the speculative risk|of such a
development. At one time, Louis Panigutti and Raymond Panigutti entered into discussions
about developing such property and splitting a development fee between them. Evidence was
submitted that Raymond Panigutti, in corréspondence through counsel, expressly voiced his
objection to Louis Panigutti pursuing this project individually. The Court notes that there was no
evidence provided that the third beneficiary, John Panigutti, consented to or was appriged of such
plans or arrangement. . :
It is well settled Connecticut Law that fiduciaries have a duty to avoid self-dealling in”
~property management and investment decisions, Catanzano v. Catanzano 127 Conn 478 (1847)
“(a) Trustee shall derive no personal advantage from the trust fund and shall not
use his position directly or indirectly to benefit himself.” Clements Appeal 49
Conn 519 (1882).
“The Court finds the Trustee undertook steps to develop property owned by theltrust. THe
property remained in the name of the Trust during such process. One beneficiary specifically
objected to the Trustee taking ‘individual action” and there is no evidence that a third beneficiary
had notice of such action.
The fiduciary claims both a “risk-reward fee” and a fee for his services at the rate of
$275.00 per hour for his time and service.
‘3|PageThe Trust specifically provides in Article II], Paragraph B:
“No child of the Grantor, nor any spouse of a child of the Grantor, nor any par
who serves as trustee of a trust where a child of said parent is the sole benefici
of such trust, nor any individual designated by his or her name in this Trust
instrument who serves as trustee or co-trustee of this Trust instrument, or of any
Trust created under this Trust instrument, shall receive any compensation for his
or her service as trustee or co-trustee of this Trust instrument or any trust created
under this Trust instrument... In addition, any trustee of this Trust instrument, \or
of any trust created by this Trust instrument, shall be entitled to reimbursemen|
for any reasonable out of pocket expenses incurred in connection with the
administration of this Trust instrument or of any trust created herein.”
Accordingly, the sum of $66,369.00 shall be restored to the Trust by the Truste:
Panigutti.
Schedule B-1 Ante-Mortem Claims
Lost Wages Regarding the Mario/Panigutti Land Division - $10,000.00
The Trustee, Louis Panigutti, reflects a payment of $10,000.00 paid to him in Schedule
B-1. The Trustee submits that these fees reflect lost wages incurred during a time period of
2006-2010 during a land dispute with other property owners. There was no evidence
specific contract for services and terms of payment. There was testimony that Mary Panigutti
allegedly offered remuneration for services prior to her death but it was declined. The
were not paid until 2015, two years after the death of Mary Panigutti, and significantly|longer
after the services were allegedly rendered.
* The Court disallows this amount and orders the Trustee, Louis Panigutti, to restore the
sum of $10,000.00 to the Trust Estate.
Schedule B-1 Payment of Expenses prior to Death and prior to Trust - $12,839.00 (B-13)
The Trustee reports a payment of $12,839.00 to himself and sets forth a schedule on
Exhibit B-1B of the Trust. These amounts represent reimbursement of travel, tolls, lodging,
meals, and entertainment expenses. The Court notes that many of these expenses were jincurred
prior to the date of the Trust. The Court acknowledges that Article III, Paragraph B of the Trust
authorizes the reimbursement of expenses. The Court finds that the expenses incurred
formation of the Trust are accepted, or $3,213.94. However, the Trustee is ordered to
sum of $9,625.14 to the Trust.
4[Page
nt
ry
ie, Louis
if any
funds
fter the
restore thePayment of Trust Expenses Prior to Death (B-1C) - $18,977.00
The Trustee reports payment of $18,977.00 for administrative expenses of the (Trust
during the period of time between March 22, 2008 and June 21, 2013. The Court adopts the
finding in the previous paragraph that there can be no claim for expenses prior to the
establishment of the Trust.
Accordingly, the sum of $18,105.74 is accepted, and the sum of $871.35 shall be restor od.
to the Estate by the Trustee.
Schedule B-3 Louis Panigutti
To Reimburse Expenses after Death (B-3A) - $16,084.00
Objection is made to the reimbursement of expenses listed in Schedule B-3. The Court
notes that the Trust permits reimbursement of expenses of a Trustee. The Court notes that there
appears to be a claim for reimbursement of expenses for the Brookside Project by Mr. Panigutti
in his capacity as Trustee. This would be the same project which Mr. Panigutti represented he
worked on as an individual and sought management fees and a “risk-reward’ fee.
The Court finds these reimbursements to be authorized under the Trust and rejects the
objection.
Schedule B-I Repayment of Rohinski Loan - $158,952.00
The Trustee reflects a payment to himself in the amount of $158,952.00 as repayment of|
a loan he personally extended to the Trust. Testimony provided that in 2003, Louis Parligutti
loaned the Trust the sum of $100,000.00. There was no note memorializing such transaction.
‘There was no persuasive evidence submitted to the Court as to the specific terms of interest and
repayment. This obligation commenced prior to the establishment of the Trust.
The Court make a specific finding that the debt was assumed by the Trust after its
formation as it was directly related to assets under its control. Despite the lack of a note, the
court finds the claim for repayment to be reasonable and rejects the objection put forth.
Proposed Distributions and Reserves — C-3
Louis Panigutti $30,000.00 Fees and $6,645.00 Interest
The fiduciary, Louis Panigutti, claims a fee of $30,000.00 and an additional sumlof
$6,645.00 for interest on such fee.
S|PageArticle III, Paragraph B. of the Trust states:
“No child of the Grantor, nor any spouse of a child of the Grantor, nor any parent
who serves as trustee of a trust where a child of said parent is the sole beneficiary
of such trust, nor any individual designated by his or her name in this Trust
instrument who serves as trustee or co-trustee of this Trust instrument, or of any
Trust created under this Trust instrument, shall receive any compensation for i is
or her service as trustee or co-trustee of this Trust instrument or any trust created
under this Trust instrument... In addition, any trustee of this Trust instrument, {or
of any trust created by this Trust instrument, shall be entitled to reimbursemen|
for any reasonable out of pocket expenses incurred in connection with the
administration of this Trust instrument or of any trust created herein.”
The Trust language is clear and unambiguous. The Trustee is charged with knowing the
terms and conditions of the Trust and conditions of his service prior to assuming the rdle of
Trustee.
The Court rejects the claim for fiduciary fees and orders such amount stricken from the
accounting.
, Schedule C-3 Proposed Distributions and Reserves
' Probate Petition - $174,114.00
The fiduciary lists a total amount of $174,114.00 for attorney fees.
The accounting reflects the following sums for attorney fees paid:
Gunn, Godfrey and Allison $5,000.00
Gunn, Godfrey and Allison 10,000.00
Gunn, Godfrey and Allison 7,000.00
Gunn, Godfrey and Allison 8,000.00
Gunn, Godfrey and Allison 10,000.00
Gunn, Godfrey and Allison 5,000.00
$45,000.00
The accounting also lists thé sum of $12,000.00 as reimbursement to Louis Panigutti for|
attorney fees paid to Attorney Ury. There is no accounting entry for Attorney Ury’s fees.
The fiduciary also seeks payment of $60,000.00 to himself as reimbursement o:
attorney’s fees paid. He was unable to provide testimony to the court as to what fees stich
amount covered. It is reflected as “reimbursement” and allegedly deposited to the Trust account,
but it is not reported as income or assets received in such accounting.
The fees already paid to Gunn, Godfrey and Allison totaling $45,000.00 are approved.
The reimbursement of $12,000.00 to Louis Pagnutti is approved.
6|PageThe Court is without sufficient information to render a decision regarding the |$60,000,
reimbursement sought by Louis Pagnutti. He is ordered to provide a breakdown of what fees
such “reimbursement” covers in an amended accounting.
There are current motions before the Court regarding outstanding attorney fees.
Court reserves judgment upon the following outstanding fees of the following listed i
C-3:
Tierney, Zullo, Flaherty and Murphy, P.C.
Gunn, Godfrey and Allison
Reimbursement to Louis Panigutti
The fiduciary is ordered to prepare an accounting without such fees. With regard to
outstanding attorney fees, he shall submit a detailed statement showing the provider, dates of
service, amounts paid to date and amounts claimed to date, within 30 days from the date of thi:
decree.
Schedule B-3 Payment to Carol Panigutti
For Secretarial Duties - $1,500.00
Objection is made to the' payment of the sum of $1,500.00 to Carol Panigutti for services
rendered to the Trustee. Testimony revealed that Carol Panigutti performed certain
administrative services such as copying to save the expense of a corporate service. Testimony
also revealed that such services only took approximately 6 hours. This would calculate to
$250.00 per hour for copying services.
The Court finds the reasonable value of such services to be $150.00 dollars and orders #
sum-of $1,350.00 be restored to the Trust by the Trustee.
Summary
Wherefore, the Court orders are summarized as follows:
The Trustee shall restore the following amounts to the Trust, if already paid, and strike
them from the accounting:
Risk-reward $66,369.00
Lost wages 10,000.00
Disallowed expenses 9,625.14
Disallowed expenses 871.35
Disallowed expenses 1,350.00
7|Page
The
Schedul
iheThe Trustee shall strike the following entries from the Trust accounting. If sucl
have been paid, they shall be restored to the Trust Estate by the fiduciary.
Receivable - Raymond Panigutti $ 63,330.00
Receivable — Raymond Panigutti 21,000.00
Receivable — Raymond Panigutti 8,055.00
Fiduciary fees 36,645.00
Such accounting shall comply with this order regarding attomey fees and show,
specific statement.
The fiduciary shall file an amended accounting incorporating the findings and
contained in this decree within 30 days from the date of this decree.
The Trustee testified as to his experience and expertise in financial matters. A
there shall be no expenditure of Trust funds to revise the accounting in a@fordance wit
orders,
Dated this 2nd day of November, 2018.
sums
them on
rders
cording!)
h these
8| Page.
‘ . !
CERTIFICATION/ STATE OF CONNECTICUT
MAILING OF DECREE
PC-152 NEW 7/13 COURT OF PROBATE
COURT OF PROBATE, Fairfield Probate Court DISTRICT NO. PD49
ESTATE OF/IN THE MATTER OF
Mary Margaret Panigutti (14-0112)
FBO Louis Anthony Panigutti, John Peter Panigutti and Raymond Joseph Panigutti
PETITION FOR: DATE OF DECRE)
Approval of Final Account 11/02/2018
CERTIFICATION 2
The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the above decree was mailed on 11/02/18 to the following as pro’
Probate Court Rules of Procedure, section 8.2:
ided in the
Name and Address .
Louis A. Panigutti, 16715 W. 94th Drive, Arvada, CO 80007
John Peter Panigutti, 220 Pansy Road, Fairfield, CT 06824 :
Louis Anthony Panigutti, 2632 St James Drive, 8.E., Southport, NC 28461-8554
Raymond Joseph Panigutti, Apollo Apart’Hotel, 352/69-70 M. 12, Pratumnak Soi 4, Nongprue, Banglamung,
Thailand ae ‘
Diane M. Allison, Esq., Gunn,-Godfr
Hison, 134 East Avenue, Norwalk, CT 06851
‘honburi 20150,
CERTIFICATION/MAILING OF DECREE
PC-152
Preview
Certified Mail No.: 7019 1120 0002 0627 3120 Docket No.: Raymond Panigutti vs. Fairfield Probate Court & Louis Panigutti AMENDED RETURN STATE OF CONNECTICUT: ‘ SS: Bridgeport December 4, 2019 " COUNTY OF FAIRFIELD: Afterwards on the 4" Day of December, 2019, I received the original envelope WITHOUT the green card attached returned back to me marked “REFUSED” requested for Certified Mail No.: 7019 1120 0002 0627 3120 addressed to Louis Panigutti, 4602 County Road 673 688, Bushnel, FL 33513 which is attached hereto:Christopher Paoletti, State Marshal 3301 Main Suce Bridgeport, CT 06606 a. S4O0O6928893329178 CHINN 7 1120 ooo2 Oke? 3120 Louis Panigutti 4602 County Road 673 688 Pt Bushnel, F1.33513 OV NIXLE 787 DE: REF BCI BEGGG>4235 RETL oY Les | @G21/25/19 N ies SENDER EFUS UNABLE re PORWARD “@6E66423361 taletenel ta tated ah *B593-OL482225 oDgppleglgusuaf gt fap UL Lely 29Certified Mail No. 7019 1120 0002 0627 3120 Docket No. Raymond Panigutti vs. Fairfield Probate Court & Louis Panigutti STATE OF CONNECTICUT: SS: Bridgeport November 6, 2019 COUNTY OF FAIRFIELD: Afterwards on the 6" day of November, 2019, I received the signed return receipt returned to me requested for certified mail no. 7019 1120 0002 0627 3120 as addressed to Louis Panigutti, 4602County Road 673688, Bushnel, FL 33513 which is attached hereto: as! Fairfield County -OPUUOULUUOSAROUTTU TENT 2 oon 1’ 590 9402 5266 9154 4606 37 ~~ |BESttod Nat Restcte Door | ws a E1-Collect on Delivery . SORES STOTT SanIpR Tah). A Coleet on Delivery Resticted Dell [* "70nd 120 0002 Dee? 3420 say 1TpS Form 3811, July 2016 PSN 7630-02-000-0059.SUMMONS - CIVIL ) : JD-CY-1 Rev. 4-16 A inen ded) STATE OF CON C.G.S, §§ 51-346, 51-347, 51-349, 51-350, $2-45a, 52-48, 52-259, P.B. §§ 3-4 through 3-21, 8-1, 10-13 w See other side for instructions Oo "X" if amount, lege interest or property in demand, not including interest and costs is less than $2,500. “X" if amount, legal interest or property in demand, not including interest and. costs is $2,500 or more. oO “X" if-claiming other relief in addition to or in lieu of money or damages. TO: Any proper officer; BY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT, you are hereby commanded to make di this Summons and attached Complaint. SUPERIOR) le and leg ECTICUT} COURT -jud.ct.go) I servicelof ~ ‘Address of court clerk where writ and other papers shall be filed (Number, street, town and zip code) | Telephone number of clerk Return Dat (C.G.S. §§ 51-346, 51-350) (with area code) fe (Must be a Tuesday) J06) ty 47 BRIPCEQORT (23 \S7H6S27 | Save 4 12 i ‘Judicial District GA At ne in which writ is returnable) {C.G.S. §§ 51-346, 51-349) . Case type Housing Session Oo Number. $ eo Major: ode (See list}on page 2 inor: For the Plaintiff(s) please enter the appearance of: Name an We of a:tomey, law firm or piaintiff if self-represented (Number, street, town and zip code) ris numb| Yr vO (AWb0TT AALYO AMS # IP 252, pei 7 tse, (lo be entered by attorney erly) Ih number (wi: area code) Signoture of Plaintiff (if selrepresented) (bc) F700 CRG FRATATNAK THAILAMO 2oOISO rand Roti, > The attorney or law firm appearing for the plaintiff, or the plaintiff if Email address for delivery of Lb rong 10-18 (if saree Lv self-represented, agrees to accept papers (service) electronically in De Y No this case under Section 10-13 of the Connecticut Practice Book. es PAN / GAUry ; Al Edi TY| CO* Number of Plaintiffs: Number of Defendants: Oo Form JD-CV-2 attached for additional patties Parties Name (Last, First, Middle Initial) and Address of Each party (Number; Street; P.O. Box; Town; State; Zip; Country, if not USA) First Name: AAPL LO ACAET x 2G P-01 Plaintify | Address: PAM) GUTTI, GAY moao S2/6G9-70 prix, Sp! 4. Additional | Name: P-02 Plaintift | Address: : PATA NAK, THAILAND bo) Se First Name: D-0f Defendant [Address: Eg PFIEL DO (e0BATE cower 725 e2€e ~T Rp) FLA Additional | Name: “el Bey D-02 Defendant | Address: PAA) (su TTI, £ oust * > ‘Additional | Name: 7 _~ 0-03 Defendant | Address: OY60x~ Couns €0O 478 k PEE FLIES /2 7 > Additional | Name: . .. x D-04 [= Defendant | Address: @ 2632. ° St eh Bi aS) ei ald Notice to Each Defendant Cig’ 4. YOU ARE BEING SUED. This paper is a Summons in a lawsuit. The complaint attached to these fibers against you in this lawsuit. 2. To be notified of further proceedings, you or your attorney must file a form called an "Appearance" witiy Court-address on or before the second day after the above Return Date. The Return Date is not a hearing date. Y« lave: Return Date unless you receive a separate notice telling you to come to court. 3. If you or your attorney do not file a written "Appearance" form on time, a judgment may be entered against you by def . The “A obtained at the Court address above or at www.jud.ct.gov under "Court Forms." 4. If you believe that you have insurance that may cover the claim that is being made against you in this lawsuit, you should immed SR & 2 \ppearance" Bye! Ainge Org es plaintiff i mening s ‘iy BS hea Court at ito come to court on the the above form may} lately contact your e insurance representative. Other action you may have to take is described in the Connecticut Practice Book which may be found ih a superior|court law library or on-line at www-jud.ct.gov under "Court Rules." . 5. If you have questions about the Summons and Complaint, you should talk to an attorney quickly. The Clerk of Court is not allgwed to givd advice on legal questions. Signed (Sign and "x" proper box) GoraTissoner ofthe T Name of Person Signing at Left =~ Date mee i fem orunn [Dd Assistant Clerk dems Lerusse rola ly If this Summons is signed by a Clerk: For Court Use Only| a. The signing has been done so that the Plaintiff(s) will not be denied access to the courts. File Date b. Itis the responsibility of the Plaintiff(s) to see that service is made in the manner provided by law. c. The Clerk is not permitted to give any legal advice in connection with any lawsuit. d. The Clerk signing this Summons at the request of the Plaintiff(s) is not responsible in any way for any errors or omissions in the Summons, any allegations contained in the Complaint, or the service of the Summons or Complaint. ' certify | have read and | Signy ‘Represented Plaintiff * WN Date Docket Number understand the above: owed On COA) Oct 24,299] CY-19- SoyoBY 9-4] 5, : Cage tof 2)“The plaintiff is not an attorney ‘but is pro sea and believe the Decree on page 5, Schedule B- "$169,565, to be based on narrow and incomplete opinion. See Decreé attached. “N Anes eV Appeal of Probate Court Decree for Repayment of "Rohinsky" Loan interest and “compound interest" for $100,000 personal venture, total $169,565 April 30, 2019 To: Clerk of the Superior Court 1 Re: Appeal Probate court of Fairfield vs. Louis Panigutti Contents: ° 1) Aggrievance Appeal 2) Summary background. . 3) Plaintiff Appeal request. _ 1) Aggrievance Appeal: The plaintiff, Raymond Panigutti, of the Mary Panigutti Revocable Trust dated Jul aggrieved by the Probate Court Decree of 11/2/2018 attached. 1 To Louis Panigutti Repayment of Rohinsky Loan and interest, and compound int 2) Summary background: In 2002, The Marios', {cousins of the Paniguttis' (Louis, John and Raymond)}, co Properties (50% interest) with Mary Panigutti, our mother. These two properties escrow with a developer. During this time, Louis used his equity line to purchase adjoining one of these parcels, (a1 & 1/2 acre parcel at Brookside Dr.), for $100 which $50,000 was a loan to the Mario’s. This 1/2'acre parcel was then merged in larger lot and was expected to enhance the sale. The sale went sour and ended in y 2009, is prest- wned two vere in, a 1/2 acre 000, of ‘0 this Court by;the developer. This purchase by Louis turned out to be a bad investment, as the m was never recovered. Louis never consulted with Raymond or John Panigutti to ma investment. There was no written promissory note for this transaction with the Mario's, and no “agreements other than the Mario's would reimburse Louis for. their $50,000 at close of escrow. No interest was discussed, as Louis expected to get reimbursed his $100,000 at the escrow closing expected within the year. joney e this erbal Louis furthermore put the deed to this 1/2 acre parcel that he personally purchased in the Mario.name, without authorization from the Mario's family. The escrow failed, and ended in Court by the developer against the Mario's and Maiy Panigutti. The Marios spent attorney fees and a payoff settlement to the developer for a total of $105,000. As such, the Marios said they do not owe Louis their 1/2 share due of $50,000, and defaulted on their $50,000 to Louis. Louis filed against them in Court for the reimbursement of the $50,000 and hired his own personal attorney to recover this. (Note: There was no separate motion included in Lou's motion to Superior Court for any interest on the $50,000 loan to the Mario's that Lou thought he was owed, as thére was no promissory note or verbal agreement). The matter was dropped when the Mary Panigutti Limited partnership bought out the Marios' interest in the properties many years later. Louis approximately ten years later took from the Mary Paniqutti Trust the entire $100,000 ($50,000 of which was a personal Joan to the Mario's, and his $50,000 loan, plus another $51,601 interest calculated at the rate of 5% per year, plus another $17,968 as “compound interest", totaling $69,565 in interest. Louis therefore has used Trust funds to pay himself for a personal venture in 2002! long before the Trust was formed in 2009. The original Objection filed with the Fairfield Probate Court was against Louis reim bursing himself the $51,601 calculated interest and $17,968 "compound interest". Judge Probate Judge, ruled that Lou was due the $100,000 loan, $51,601 calculated interest and $17,968 “compound interest", totaling $169,565. Note: There was never any agreement for any of this, 1.e. interest, compound int including the original $50,000 loan to the Mario's and Lou's $50,000 loan. There promissory note memorializing such transaction with the Mario's or John Panigutti Raymond Panigutti, and no verbal agreements with anyone regarding interest. There was never any verbal or written documents to suggest that the debt was a: Anthon rest, as no and sumed by the Trust after it's formation, even though the asset was under it's control.Clearly there was no mention of interest owed to Louis in the Trust document, or a y_other documents. 3) Plaintiff Appeal request. The Trust specifically provides in Article III, Paragraph B: "No child of the Grantor, nor any spouse of a child of the Grantor, nor any parent serves as trustee of a trust where a child of said parent is the sole beneficiary of su nor any individual designated by his or her name in this Trust instrument who serv) trustee or co- trustee of this trust Instrument, or of any Trust created under this Ti Instrument, shall receive any compensation for his or her service as trustee or co-tirustee of this Trust instrument or any trust created by this Trust instrument...In addition, an| of this trust instrument, or of any trust created by this trust Instrument, shall be e reimbursement for any reasonable out of pocket expenses incurred in connection administration of the Trust instrument or of any trust created herein." In addition, it is well settled Connecticut law that fiduciaries have a duty to avoid si dealing in property management and investment decisions, Catanzano v. Catanza’ Conn 478 (1847): “a) Trustee shall derive no personal advantage from the trust fund and shall not sae his position directly or indirectly to benefit himself." Clements Appeal 49 Con 519 (18: Louis, trustee, is not allowed legally to use Trust funds to pay for personal ventur is what he did. Note: The statutes cited above were by Judge Anthony's Decree dated Nov. 2, 2018 against Louis for using Trust funds to pay for another personal venture. This personal venture and Judge Antony's Decree follows: Louis had additionally taken $66,369 from the Trust for using his personal LLC td pay development fees for finishing up a family subdivision. The Judge's ruling states...|. sum of $66,369 must be restored to the Trust by the trustee”, citing the above. S attached Decree. ( Note: Louis has subsequently appealed this ruling with the Su Court of Bridgeport and is pending, due for Hearing on Sept. 26, 2019). 1 it appears illegal that Louis reimbursed himself $51,601 calculated interest, and a $17,968 “compound interest" from the Trust for a $100,000 personal venture, ha ho ich trust, RS as ust trustee titled to} ith the elf- no 127 2). es, which lother "Thel ee preme hother ing noagreements with our cousin's, the Mario's, or John and Raymond Panigutti, (brothets and beneficiaries of the Trust). Accordingly, it is requested that the $51,601 calculated interest, $17,968 "compound interest", be restored to the Trust. It is uncertain if it was legal for Louis to reimburse himself from Trust funds for the|persona| venture to purchase a 1/2 acre, for $100,000, of which $50,000 was a personal loan to the Mario's, and $50,000 personal funds. If it was illegal for Louis to reimburse himself the $50,000 loan to the Mario's and Louis's $50,000, then it is requested that these additional monies also be restored to the Trust by Louis Panigutti.STATE OF CONNECTICUT DECREE COURT OF PROBATE COURT OF PROBATE, DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD DISTRICT #49 IN RE: MARY MARGARET PANIGUTTI REVOCABLE TRUST (14-0112) Presiding Judge: Hon. Fred J. Antho: Louis Panigutti filed an accounting in his capacity as trustee of the Mary Margaret Panigutti Revocable Trust dated July 23, 2009.: Such accounting reflects transactions June 20, 2013 and June 30, 2018. Raymond Panigutti has filed numerous objections accounting. such The assets held by this Trust included several pieces and parcels of real estate located in the Town of Fairfield. Mary Margaret Panigutti was a trustee of the Trust, up to her June 21, 2013. The accounting shows that at the commencement of the reporting period, the Trust had assets totaling $1,800,422.00. Ante mortem claims and administrative expenses were|reported|to be $673,453.00. Further, the accounting shows distributions to beneficiaries and assets on hand totaling $1,339,676.00. Mr. Raymond Panigutti, a beneficiary of the Trust, has objected to numerous gntries in such accounting. The Court shall address objections individually. Capital Gains Tax Liability Raymond Panigutti alleges that the transfer of real property to him may result gains tax liability to him personally. At the ne nearine testimony : showed that no such wish to pursue such claim. Scheduled A-2 Additional Assets Received . Receivable from Raymond Panigutti for Additional Expenses related to February 20,2014 Petition The accounting, under the heading “Additional Assets Received,” shows a $63,330.00 “receivable” from Raymond Panigutti. This amount has not been adjudicated by any court. The Fiduciary testified that such amount was calculated and assessed by him. Such amount was 1[Pagecalculated by assessing certain legal and accounting fees already paid, and also estab ishing a reserve of $20,000.00 for additional fees which may be incurred. The record reflects|that Mr. Raymond Panigutti petitioned the Court in February 2014 for redress regarding a dispute over property on Pansy Road. This issue was heard by the Probate Court at a prior hearing, but a mistrial was subsequently declared. The Court has heard testimony regarding the evdnts and allegations regarding such transaction, and finds that no credible, persuasive evidence was submitted which would substantiate the inclusion of a receivable in such accounting for fees, either incurred or anticipated. The Court finds that a good faith dispute existed. Accordingly, the trustee may not unilaterally surcharge an amount against said claimant/beneficiary. The receivable of $63,330.00 shall be stricken from the accounting. Schedule A-1 Receivable Raymond Panigutti 25’ Extension of Land Purchase The Trustee, Louis Panigutti, has included a receivable in the amount of $21,000.00 from Raymond Panigutti. This claim results from an alleged breach of an agreement to purchase such property from the Trust by Raymond Panigutti. The Court notes that there was no evidence that a written contract was ever executed for such purchase. Testimony was unclear as to whether actual deed was accepted by Mr. Raymond Panigutti. Testimony was clear that any such purported deed was never in the possession of Mr. Raymond Panigutti or recorded uppn the land records. There was no evidence of any court action or adjudication of the claim by either party, with regard to this issue. Accordingly, the Trustee may not unilaterally surcharge Raymond Panigutti in| such accounting. The Receivable of $21,000.00 is not allowed and is ordered stricken from the accounting. Schedule B-6 Receivable Raymond Panigutti Development Costs for 298 Parisy Road, $8,055 The Trustee, Louis Panigutti reports a receivable from Raymond Panigutti in the amount of $8,055.00. The Trustee alleges that this amount reflects sums paid from Mary Panigutti’s accounts in 2012. This is once again, an expense which the Trustee seeks to include ih his accounting as a receivable without any underlying judgment or adjudication supporting the same. At best, it is a claim which may have been sought six years ago. The Trustee did not bring suit on such claim, nor take further action. Accordingly, such “receivable” is not allowed in such accounting and shall be stricken. 2|PageSchedule B-3 To Louis Panigutti Return on Risk-reward Venture \ The Trustee, Louis Panigutti reports an entry in his accounting of $100,000.00 paid to him. This eritry is related to the development of certain property owned by the Trust. In an attachment to his accounting the Trustee writes, “Louis, rather than for personal inheritance and not as trustee or as fiduciary, but as an independent venture with persdnal expense and risk accepted the challenge for possible mutual entrepreneur and Trust banefit.” The accounting reflects that the total sum of $100,000.00 was paid directly to Louis * Panigutti. Such amount includes the following expenses: $38,500.00 | Management fees 27,869.00 Risk-reward fee 8,064.00 . Expenses Testimony revealed that during this period of development, the property remained in the name of the trust. Louis Panigutti referred to this property as “his” inhetitance. However, the property was not distributed as such. . _Testimony revealed that several developers chose not take the speculative risk|of such a development. At one time, Louis Panigutti and Raymond Panigutti entered into discussions about developing such property and splitting a development fee between them. Evidence was submitted that Raymond Panigutti, in corréspondence through counsel, expressly voiced his objection to Louis Panigutti pursuing this project individually. The Court notes that there was no evidence provided that the third beneficiary, John Panigutti, consented to or was appriged of such plans or arrangement. . : It is well settled Connecticut Law that fiduciaries have a duty to avoid self-dealling in” ~property management and investment decisions, Catanzano v. Catanzano 127 Conn 478 (1847) “(a) Trustee shall derive no personal advantage from the trust fund and shall not use his position directly or indirectly to benefit himself.” Clements Appeal 49 Conn 519 (1882). “The Court finds the Trustee undertook steps to develop property owned by theltrust. THe property remained in the name of the Trust during such process. One beneficiary specifically objected to the Trustee taking ‘individual action” and there is no evidence that a third beneficiary had notice of such action. The fiduciary claims both a “risk-reward fee” and a fee for his services at the rate of $275.00 per hour for his time and service. ‘3|PageThe Trust specifically provides in Article II], Paragraph B: “No child of the Grantor, nor any spouse of a child of the Grantor, nor any par who serves as trustee of a trust where a child of said parent is the sole benefici of such trust, nor any individual designated by his or her name in this Trust instrument who serves as trustee or co-trustee of this Trust instrument, or of any Trust created under this Trust instrument, shall receive any compensation for his or her service as trustee or co-trustee of this Trust instrument or any trust created under this Trust instrument... In addition, any trustee of this Trust instrument, \or of any trust created by this Trust instrument, shall be entitled to reimbursemen| for any reasonable out of pocket expenses incurred in connection with the administration of this Trust instrument or of any trust created herein.” Accordingly, the sum of $66,369.00 shall be restored to the Trust by the Truste: Panigutti. Schedule B-1 Ante-Mortem Claims Lost Wages Regarding the Mario/Panigutti Land Division - $10,000.00 The Trustee, Louis Panigutti, reflects a payment of $10,000.00 paid to him in Schedule B-1. The Trustee submits that these fees reflect lost wages incurred during a time period of 2006-2010 during a land dispute with other property owners. There was no evidence specific contract for services and terms of payment. There was testimony that Mary Panigutti allegedly offered remuneration for services prior to her death but it was declined. The were not paid until 2015, two years after the death of Mary Panigutti, and significantly|longer after the services were allegedly rendered. * The Court disallows this amount and orders the Trustee, Louis Panigutti, to restore the sum of $10,000.00 to the Trust Estate. Schedule B-1 Payment of Expenses prior to Death and prior to Trust - $12,839.00 (B-13) The Trustee reports a payment of $12,839.00 to himself and sets forth a schedule on Exhibit B-1B of the Trust. These amounts represent reimbursement of travel, tolls, lodging, meals, and entertainment expenses. The Court notes that many of these expenses were jincurred prior to the date of the Trust. The Court acknowledges that Article III, Paragraph B of the Trust authorizes the reimbursement of expenses. The Court finds that the expenses incurred formation of the Trust are accepted, or $3,213.94. However, the Trustee is ordered to sum of $9,625.14 to the Trust. 4[Page nt ry ie, Louis if any funds fter the restore thePayment of Trust Expenses Prior to Death (B-1C) - $18,977.00 The Trustee reports payment of $18,977.00 for administrative expenses of the (Trust during the period of time between March 22, 2008 and June 21, 2013. The Court adopts the finding in the previous paragraph that there can be no claim for expenses prior to the establishment of the Trust. Accordingly, the sum of $18,105.74 is accepted, and the sum of $871.35 shall be restor od. to the Estate by the Trustee. Schedule B-3 Louis Panigutti To Reimburse Expenses after Death (B-3A) - $16,084.00 Objection is made to the reimbursement of expenses listed in Schedule B-3. The Court notes that the Trust permits reimbursement of expenses of a Trustee. The Court notes that there appears to be a claim for reimbursement of expenses for the Brookside Project by Mr. Panigutti in his capacity as Trustee. This would be the same project which Mr. Panigutti represented he worked on as an individual and sought management fees and a “risk-reward’ fee. The Court finds these reimbursements to be authorized under the Trust and rejects the objection. Schedule B-I Repayment of Rohinski Loan - $158,952.00 The Trustee reflects a payment to himself in the amount of $158,952.00 as repayment of| a loan he personally extended to the Trust. Testimony provided that in 2003, Louis Parligutti loaned the Trust the sum of $100,000.00. There was no note memorializing such transaction. ‘There was no persuasive evidence submitted to the Court as to the specific terms of interest and repayment. This obligation commenced prior to the establishment of the Trust. The Court make a specific finding that the debt was assumed by the Trust after its formation as it was directly related to assets under its control. Despite the lack of a note, the court finds the claim for repayment to be reasonable and rejects the objection put forth. Proposed Distributions and Reserves — C-3 Louis Panigutti $30,000.00 Fees and $6,645.00 Interest The fiduciary, Louis Panigutti, claims a fee of $30,000.00 and an additional sumlof $6,645.00 for interest on such fee. S|PageArticle III, Paragraph B. of the Trust states: “No child of the Grantor, nor any spouse of a child of the Grantor, nor any parent who serves as trustee of a trust where a child of said parent is the sole beneficiary of such trust, nor any individual designated by his or her name in this Trust instrument who serves as trustee or co-trustee of this Trust instrument, or of any Trust created under this Trust instrument, shall receive any compensation for i is or her service as trustee or co-trustee of this Trust instrument or any trust created under this Trust instrument... In addition, any trustee of this Trust instrument, {or of any trust created by this Trust instrument, shall be entitled to reimbursemen| for any reasonable out of pocket expenses incurred in connection with the administration of this Trust instrument or of any trust created herein.” The Trust language is clear and unambiguous. The Trustee is charged with knowing the terms and conditions of the Trust and conditions of his service prior to assuming the rdle of Trustee. The Court rejects the claim for fiduciary fees and orders such amount stricken from the accounting. , Schedule C-3 Proposed Distributions and Reserves ' Probate Petition - $174,114.00 The fiduciary lists a total amount of $174,114.00 for attorney fees. The accounting reflects the following sums for attorney fees paid: Gunn, Godfrey and Allison $5,000.00 Gunn, Godfrey and Allison 10,000.00 Gunn, Godfrey and Allison 7,000.00 Gunn, Godfrey and Allison 8,000.00 Gunn, Godfrey and Allison 10,000.00 Gunn, Godfrey and Allison 5,000.00 $45,000.00 The accounting also lists thé sum of $12,000.00 as reimbursement to Louis Panigutti for| attorney fees paid to Attorney Ury. There is no accounting entry for Attorney Ury’s fees. The fiduciary also seeks payment of $60,000.00 to himself as reimbursement o: attorney’s fees paid. He was unable to provide testimony to the court as to what fees stich amount covered. It is reflected as “reimbursement” and allegedly deposited to the Trust account, but it is not reported as income or assets received in such accounting. The fees already paid to Gunn, Godfrey and Allison totaling $45,000.00 are approved. The reimbursement of $12,000.00 to Louis Pagnutti is approved. 6|PageThe Court is without sufficient information to render a decision regarding the |$60,000, reimbursement sought by Louis Pagnutti. He is ordered to provide a breakdown of what fees such “reimbursement” covers in an amended accounting. There are current motions before the Court regarding outstanding attorney fees. Court reserves judgment upon the following outstanding fees of the following listed i C-3: Tierney, Zullo, Flaherty and Murphy, P.C. Gunn, Godfrey and Allison Reimbursement to Louis Panigutti The fiduciary is ordered to prepare an accounting without such fees. With regard to outstanding attorney fees, he shall submit a detailed statement showing the provider, dates of service, amounts paid to date and amounts claimed to date, within 30 days from the date of thi: decree. Schedule B-3 Payment to Carol Panigutti For Secretarial Duties - $1,500.00 Objection is made to the' payment of the sum of $1,500.00 to Carol Panigutti for services rendered to the Trustee. Testimony revealed that Carol Panigutti performed certain administrative services such as copying to save the expense of a corporate service. Testimony also revealed that such services only took approximately 6 hours. This would calculate to $250.00 per hour for copying services. The Court finds the reasonable value of such services to be $150.00 dollars and orders # sum-of $1,350.00 be restored to the Trust by the Trustee. Summary Wherefore, the Court orders are summarized as follows: The Trustee shall restore the following amounts to the Trust, if already paid, and strike them from the accounting: Risk-reward $66,369.00 Lost wages 10,000.00 Disallowed expenses 9,625.14 Disallowed expenses 871.35 Disallowed expenses 1,350.00 7|Page The Schedul iheThe Trustee shall strike the following entries from the Trust accounting. If sucl have been paid, they shall be restored to the Trust Estate by the fiduciary. Receivable - Raymond Panigutti $ 63,330.00 Receivable — Raymond Panigutti 21,000.00 Receivable — Raymond Panigutti 8,055.00 Fiduciary fees 36,645.00 Such accounting shall comply with this order regarding attomey fees and show, specific statement. The fiduciary shall file an amended accounting incorporating the findings and contained in this decree within 30 days from the date of this decree. The Trustee testified as to his experience and expertise in financial matters. A there shall be no expenditure of Trust funds to revise the accounting in a@fordance wit orders, Dated this 2nd day of November, 2018. sums them on rders cording!) h these 8| Page. ‘ . ! CERTIFICATION/ STATE OF CONNECTICUT MAILING OF DECREE PC-152 NEW 7/13 COURT OF PROBATE COURT OF PROBATE, Fairfield Probate Court DISTRICT NO. PD49 ESTATE OF/IN THE MATTER OF Mary Margaret Panigutti (14-0112) FBO Louis Anthony Panigutti, John Peter Panigutti and Raymond Joseph Panigutti PETITION FOR: DATE OF DECRE) Approval of Final Account 11/02/2018 CERTIFICATION 2 The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the above decree was mailed on 11/02/18 to the following as pro’ Probate Court Rules of Procedure, section 8.2: ided in the Name and Address . Louis A. Panigutti, 16715 W. 94th Drive, Arvada, CO 80007 John Peter Panigutti, 220 Pansy Road, Fairfield, CT 06824 : Louis Anthony Panigutti, 2632 St James Drive, 8.E., Southport, NC 28461-8554 Raymond Joseph Panigutti, Apollo Apart’Hotel, 352/69-70 M. 12, Pratumnak Soi 4, Nongprue, Banglamung, Thailand ae ‘ Diane M. Allison, Esq., Gunn,-Godfr Hison, 134 East Avenue, Norwalk, CT 06851 ‘honburi 20150, CERTIFICATION/MAILING OF DECREE PC-152