RETURN DATE: SEPTEMBER17, 2024
`
`PAULA NAPPI, EXECUTRIX, ESTATE OF
`PAUL JOSEPH PALMESE,JR., AKA PAUL
`J. PALMESE,JR.
`
`V.
`
`MARY ROSE PALMESE,
`ERICKSON-HANSEN,INC., and
`ERICKSON-HANSEN FUNERAL HOME OF
`BERLIN, LLC
`
`;
`
`;
`
`:
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
`NEW BRITAIN
`
`AUGUST16, 2024
`
`COMPLAINT OF APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF PROBATE, DISTRICT OF
`BERLIN AND REASONS FOR APPEAL
`
`1,
`
`2.
`
`Paul Joseph Palmese,Jr., aka Paul J. Palmese,Jr. died on August 3, 2021 (the “Decedent”).
`
`On October 28, 2024, the Probate Courtfor the District of Berlin issued a decree admitting
`
`the Decedent’s Last Will and Testament dated May 23, 2019 (the “Will”).
`
`3,
`
`The Decedent’s wife, Mary Rose Palmese, who is the defendant in this action (“Mary
`
`Rose”), took an appeal of that decree, which appeal is presently pending in the Judicial
`
`District of Middlesex, captioned Mary Rose Palmese v. Paula Nappi, Executrix, Estate of
`
`Paul Joseph Palmese, Jr. AKA Paul J. Palmese, Jr., et al (Docket No. MMX-CV22-
`
`6038089-S) (the “Pending Appeal”).
`
`4.
`
`Mary Rose commenced the Pending Appeal, alleging, inter alia, that the Probate Court
`
`erred in admitting the Will because the Decedent lacked testamentary capacity at the time
`
`it was executed and that the Will was the product of undue influence.
`
`5,
`
`The Decedent’s daughter, Paula Nappi, both as executrix of the Decedent’s estate and in
`her individual capacity, along with her sister, Lisa Palmese, were named as defendants in
`
`the Pending Appeal.
`
`
`
`

`

`The primary asset of the Decedent’s estate is a one-half interest in the property located at
`
`735 Southington Road, Berlin, Connecticut (the “Property’”),
`
`Mary Rose ownsthe other one-half interest in the Property.
`
`All other assets of the Decedent at the time of his death, including over $400,000.00 in
`
`joint bank accounts, passed to the Mary Roseat the time of the Decedent’s death.
`
`By way of background, following the Decedent’s death, Mary Rose entered into a contract
`
`with Erickson-Hansen Funeral Home of Berlin, LLC and/or Erickson-Hansen,
`
`Inc.
`
`(collectively the “Funeral Home”), for the Decedent’s funeral arrangements,
`
`10.
`
`' The Plaintiff, neither as executrix of the Decedent’s estate nor in her individual capacity
`
`signed the funeral home contract.
`
`tl.
`
`The Decedent’s estate, with no liquid assets, was unable to pay the Funeral Homebill at
`
`the time services were rendered.
`
`12.
`
`Despite being a signatory to the Funeral Home contract, Mary Rose did not pay the Funeral
`
`Homebill.
`
`13,
`
`The Funeral Home bill allegedly provides for interest on any unpaid balance; however,
`
`given that Paula Nappi neither as executrix of the Decedent’s estate nor in her individual
`
`capacity, signed the Funeral Homecontract, she incontrovertibly had no knowledge that
`
`the funeral bill included the alleged interest provision.
`
`14,
`
`On March 6, 2024, the parties of the Pending Appeal attended mediation with Attorney
`
`Robert K. Killian.
`
`15,
`
`At the time of the mediation, the only bill that had been proffered by the Funeral Hometo
`
`the Executrix wasa bill in the amount of $12,360.13. The parties reached agreementin the
`
`mediation based on a numberofdifferent factors, including the funeral bill in the amount
`
`

`

`of $12,360.13. It is notable that the time of the mediation, not only did the Executrix not
`
`receive any statementor claim of interest from the Funeral Home,butalso that the probate
`
`court’s electronic file (Turbo Court) did not contain any such funeral bill stating or
`
`claiming interest.
`
`16.
`
`At the conclusion of the mediation, the parties entered into a settlement agreement dated
`
`March6, 2024 (the “Settlement Agreement”) in reliance on the foregoing.
`
`17,
`
`The Settlement Agreement provided that in exchange for $137,500, the Decedent’s estate
`
`would transfer its one-half interest in the Property to Mary Rose.
`
`18.
`
`The Settlement Agreement also states in relevant part
`
`that “the executrix will be
`
`responsible for paying all expenses of the estate that are outstanding...”. The only bill
`
`outstanding with the Funeral Homeat such time wasthe bill in the amount of $12,360.13.
`
`19,
`
`Following the mediation, the parties took steps to effectuate the terms of the settlement
`
`agreement, and there was a hearing in the Probate Court on April 9, 2024, concerning the
`
`same. At that April 9, 2024, Hearing, the Funeral Home suddenly without notice to any
`
`party came forward with a bill of $19,319.87, almost $7,000 more than any previousbill
`
`ever presented to the executrix.
`
`20,
`
`During that process, given the foregoing, a dispute arose as to whether interest that
`
`allegedly accrued on the funeral bill for the Decedent’s funeral services was actually
`
`payable, and/or was properly an expenseofthe estate.
`
`21.
`
`On May29, 2024, a hearing washeld before Judge William C. Rivera to resolve the dispute
`
`as to whether any party, and/or which party, could be responsible for the interest that
`
`allegedly accrued on the outstanding balance of the Funeral Homebill.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`22,
`
`The Decedent's estate arguedthat if any party should beliable for the interest, then Mary
`
`Rose, as signatory to the contract, rather than the estate, should be responsible for the
`
`interest that allegedly accrued on the Funeral Homebill.
`
`23,
`
`The Decedent’s estate does not dispute that it is responsible for payment of the principal
`
`balance ofthe funeral bill of $12,360.13.
`
`24.
`
`On July 25, 2024, the Probate Court for the District of Berlin issued a decree, in the form
`
`of a memorandum of decision, which decree was mailed by the Probate Court notearlier
`
`than on July 25, 2024, a copy of whichis attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`25,
`
`The decree provides in relevant part that “the bill from Erickson-Hanson Funeral Homeis
`
`to be paid in full including the interest charged through the date of the hearing...”.
`
`The decree does not specify which party was responsible for paying the interest.
`
`Read as a whole, the decree purports to require that the Decedent’s estate pay the funeral
`
`26,
`
`27,
`
`bill, including all accrued interest, which is wrongful.
`
`28,
`
`The estate is clearly not liable for the accrued interest, as it: (1) never signed the contract
`
`with the Funeral Home; (2) had no notice of any such claim ofinterest at the time of the
`
`settlementof the case; and (3) the only bill that had ever been issued by the Funeral Home
`
`was in the amount of $12,360.13 (whichit issued to several parties, including Mary Rose,
`
`the executrix Paula Nappi, and the Court, in that $12,360.13 amount).
`
`29,
`
`The Plaintiff is aggrieved by said decree and appeals from the same given that paying the
`
`interest will increase the expenses of the estate and therefore reduce the assets able to be
`
`distributed to the estate’s beneficiaries.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`WHEREFORE,the Plaintiff seeks the followingrelief:
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff prays this Court to render judgmentin favorof the plaintiff sustaining this
`
`appeal; That the Probate Court’s decision set forth in Exhibit A be reversed andset aside; and
`
`that the Superior Court hearthis appeal.
`
`Dated at Glastonbury, Connecticut this 16'" day of August, 2024.
`
`PLAINTIFF
`
`
`
`}
`
`
`ALTER & PEARSO
`701 Hebron| Ayente |
`
`ee
`P.O. Box 1530
`
`Glastonbury, Connecticut 06033
`(860) 652-4020 (telephone)
`(860) 652-4022 (fax)
`Juris No. 403940
`
`

`

`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`STATE OF CONNECTICUT
`
`COURT OF PROBATE, DISTRICT OF BERLIN
`
`DISTRICT PDO8
`
`In Re: Paul Joseph Palmese, Jee
`Memorandum of Decision
`
`The court ordered on Apil 9, 2024 that the funeral expenses, from Erickson-Hansen Funeral Home, be
`paid outof the proceedsof the sale of the home,in full. The law regarding paymentoffuneral expenses
`is out lined in Connecticut General Statutes 45a-366,
`The Fiduciary through herattorney made an application for Clarification of decree.
`
`The court held a hearing on the requestforclarification May 29, 2024. All parties were presentat the
`hearing.
`‘
`
`The issue presented to the Court was weather or notthe fiduciary, (Paula Nappi), would have to paythe
`Interest that accumulated because ofthe delay in the case, due to appeals that were taken by the
`parties.
`
`The court heard testimony from Peter Hanson the funeral director, He stated both the fiduciary and the
`next of kin, (Mary Rose Palmese), were present on the day the arrangements were made, Only the next
`of kin signed the documents.
`
`Mr, Hansontestified that he sent the bill to the court on August 4, 2021, The court found the bill in the
`file. The court will note that the bill in the court file has a provision for interest to run with thebill. The
`parties received a bill at different times. Mr. Hansonstated that he sent emails to the fiduciary and to
`the next of kin on several occasions. This fact was not disputed, Mr. Hansom stated that he received a
`reply from the fiduciary stating she could not pay thebill now but when the appeals were over the bill
`would be pald,
`
`The fiductary, Ms, Nappi, testified that she was in fact present on the day the arrangements were made
`but she did not pay attention to the details of the services to be provided except for the casket, Ms.
`Nappi stated that she did recelve a bill but was unaware that interest was being charged, Other than
`responding to the emails sent by Mr. Hanson Ms. Nappi indicated she did not follow up on the bill or
`inquire aboutit. Ms. Nappitestified that thefirst time she realized Interest was being charged was on
`April 9, 2024 three years after the probate case was opened, Ms. Nappitestifies that as the fiduciary she
`did not cometo the court to confirm or to review the file or on the bills that may have beenin thefile.
`
`After hearing all the testimony and documents presented the court, the court finds and orders the
`following.
`
`1. The fiduciary was present on the day the documents were signed and the contract was
`explained.
`2. The bill was presented in a timely manner on August 17, 2022.
`
`

`

`
`
`The fiduciary did receive the bill from the funeral home but did not follow up to confirm the bill
`as she was undera duty to doasthe fiduciary,
`The fiduciary received emails from the Mr, Hanson about the outstandingbill and responded to
`Mr. Hanson that “she was unable to pay thebill because of the appeal”, No further inquire was
`madeby the fiduciary,
`During the three years the case was pending the fiduciary failed to follow up to confirm the bill
`or negotiate the bill as she had the power and the duty to do as the fiduciary.
`The bill from Erickson-Hanson Funeral HomeIs to be paid in full Including the Interest charged
`through the date of the hearing May 29, 2024.
`The court orders the bill from the Erlckson- Hanson Funeral Home be paid nolater July 31, 2024,
`The court orders that if the bill is not paid by July 31, 2024, then The Erickson-Hanson Funeral
`Homeshall resume charging interest until the bill gets paid pursuant to their contract.
`
`7.
`
`8
`
`Dated at NewBritain, Connecticut this 25" day of July, 2024
`
` William C, Rivera, Judge
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATION/
`MAILING OF DECREE
`PC-152 REV, 01/20
`
`STATE OF CONNECTICUT
`
`COURT OF PROBATE
`
`COURT OF PROBATE,Berlin Probate Court
`
`DISTRICT NO. PDOS
`
`ESTATE OF/IN THE MATTER OF
`
`Paul Joseph Palmese, Jr., AKA Paul J, Palmese, Jr, (21-00703)
`
`PETITION FOR:
`DATE OF DECREE:
`
`
`
`Memorandum of Decision re: Funeral invoice
`5/29/2024
`
`
`CERTIFICATION
`
`
`
`
`NameandAddress
`
`Paula Nappi, 141 §, Borough Road, Southington, CT 06489
`MATTHEW J LEFEVRE (attorney for Paula Nappi), LAW OFFICES OF, MATTHEW LEFEVRE,ESQ PC,-38 WOODLAND
`STREET, HARTFORD, CT 06105 (by eService)
`Lisa Palmese, 290 Spring Lake Road, Southington, CT 06489
`MaryRose Palmese, 735 Southington Road, Berlin, CT 06037
`WILLIAM J SWEENEY(attorney for Mary Rose Palmese), LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM J, SWEENEY JR LLC, ONE
`LIBERTY SQUARE, NEW BRITAIN,CT 06051 (by cService)
`Raegan Moore, 35 Bernadette Lane, Durham, CT 06422-2823
`Jackson Moore, 35 Bernadette Lane, Durham, CT 06422-2823
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the above-referenced decree was sent on 7/25/2024 to the following as provided
`in the Probate Court Rules of Procedure, section 8,2:
`
`Peter V, Hansen, Erickson-Hansen Funeral Home, 411 South Main Street, New Britain, CT 06051
`
`ducauct
`
`
`
`“SusanT,Meagher, ChiefClerk
`
`aaEEtnsientiss/tisestiintteTESeT
`
`CERTIFICATION/MAILING OF DECREE
`PC-152
`
`