SUPERIOR COURT
`
`JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW
`HAVEN
`
`AT NEW HAVEN
`
`DECEMBER 21, 2021
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`::
`
`:
`:
`:
`
`DOCKET NO. NNH-CV-21-6118844-S
`
`LAW OFFICES OF KEITH V. SITTNICK, LLC
`
`v.
`
`WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., TRUSTEE OF
`THE JACQUELINE BOLEY REVOCABLE
`TRUST U/A DATED OCTOBER 15, 2013
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`Introduction
`
`The defendant, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Trustee of the Jacqueline Boley Revocable Trust
`
`U/A Dated October 15, 2013, has moved on even date herewith, pursuant to Connecticut Rules of
`
`Practice § 10-39, to strike the Complaint filed in this matter in its entirety on the ground that it fails
`
`to allege successfully a single viable or cognizable cause of action under any three of the plaintiff’s
`
`claims and bases for relief, to wit: (1) Breach of Contract (First Count); (2) Unjust Enrichment
`
`(Second Count); and (3) Quantum Meruit (Third Count).
`
`The plaintiff’s case is a claim by an attorney for legal fees sounding breach of contract, unjust
`
`enrichment and quantum meruit, brought against the Trustee of a Trust who never sought the
`
`plaintiff’s services or agreed to pay for them and was never benefitted one iota by the plaintiff’s
`
`alleged services. Indeed, recourse to the Complaint on file with the court shows that the plaintiff has
`
`1
`
`

`

`failed to allege the existence of contract or agreement or any other legal basis upon which it is
`
`entitled to be paid. The plaintiff has also failed to allege sufficient facts to support either of its
`
`claims under the theories of unjust enrichment or quantum meruit.
`
`As set forth below, at best, the plaintiff, Law Offices of Keith V. Sittnick, LLC, has alleged
`
`mere legal conclusions with insufficient subordinate facts to support any of its legal claims for
`
`Breach of Contract, Unjust Enrichment or Quantum Meruit. As noted above, the plaintiff has failed
`
`to plead the existence of an agreement by the defendant to pay the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also
`
`failed to allege any facts in support of its notion that the defendant was benefitted by its services,
`
`much less enriched or “unjustly enriched.” The plaintiff has further failed to allege any facts in
`
`support of the existence of a so-called course of conduct or anything else that implied a promise by
`
`the defendant to pay attorneys fees to the plaintiff-law firm.
`
`Accordingly, as and for the reasons set forth above and below, the defendant’s
`
`Motion to Strike must be granted and the Complaint in this action must be stricken in its entirety.
`
`LAW AND ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`Controlling Legal Principles Governing a Motion to Strike:
`
`Connecticut Rules of Practice § 10-39, entitled Motion to Strike; Grounds, states in
`
`subsection (a), in pertinent part, the following:
`
`(a) A motion to strike shall be used whenever any party wishes to contest: (1) the
`legal sufficiency of the allegations of any complaint, counterclaim or cross claim,
`
`2
`
`

`

`or of any one or more counts thereof, to state a claim upon which relief can be
`granted; or (2) the legal sufficiency of any prayer for relief in any such complaint,
`counterclaim or cross complaint[.]
`
`Connecticut Practice Book § 10-39.
`
`“The purpose of a motion to strike is to contest ... the legal sufficiency of the allegations of
`
`any complaint ... to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” (Internal quotation marks
`
`omitted.) Faulkner v. United Technologies Corp., 240 Conn. 576, 580 (1997); see Practice Book
`
`§ 10–39. “A motion to strike challenges the legal sufficiency of a pleading, and, consequently,
`
`requires no factual findings by the trial court. . . . We take the facts to be those alleged in the
`
`complaint . . . and we construe the complaint in the manner most favorable to sustaining its legal
`
`sufficiency. . . . Thus, [i]f facts provable in the complaint would support a cause of action, the
`
`motion to strike must be denied.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Vacco v.
`
`Microsoft Corp., 260 Conn. 59, 64–65 “A motion to strike is properly granted if the complaint
`
`alleges mere conclusions of law that are unsupported by the facts alleged.” Fort Trumbull
`
`Conservancy, LLC v. Alves, 262 Conn. 480, 498 (2003), quoting Novametrix Medical Systems, Inc.
`
`v. BOC Group, Inc., 224 Conn. 210, 215 (1992).
`
`As set forth below, none of the counts of the plaintiff’s Complaint are supported by the
`
`facts alleged; rather, each count of the Complaint, at best, “alleges mere conclusions of law that
`
`are unsupported by the facts alleged.” Novametrix Medical Systems, Inc., 224 Conn. at 215.
`
`Accordingly, the Complaint must be stricken in its entirety.
`
`3
`
`

`

`II.
`
`None of the Counts of the Complaint Allege Sufficient Facts to Support a
`Cause of Action or Basis for Relief and Each Count Must be Stricken.
`
`A.
`
`The Complaint Fails to Allege the Existence of a Contract or Agreement.
`
`“The elements of a breach of contract action are the formation of an agreement, performance
`
`by one party, breach of the agreement by the other party and damages.” Keller v. Beckenstein, 117
`
`Conn.App. 550, 558 (2009)(Internal quotation marks omitted.) cert. denied, 294 Conn. 913 (2009).
`
` As is self-evident from the face of the Complaint, the plaintiff has not alleged any facts which even
`
`intimate, much less constitute an allegation, that any contract or agreement was ever formed between
`
`the plaintiff and the defendant in connection with any work done by the plaintiff. In fact, the only
`
`oblique reference to any work at all by the plaintiff is its allegation in ¶ 4 of the First Count for
`
`Breach of Contract that the plaintiff was retained by one Lelwani Acquviva, whom the complaint
`
`identifies as a beneficiary of the Jacqueline Boley Revocable Trust U/A Dated October 15, 2013.1
`
`The plaintiff has not pled it is entitled to payment under the terms of the Trust
`1
`Agreement as of right, or that it is a beneficiary of the Trust or that the defendant-trustee ever
`agreed to pay the plaintiff. Additionally, the plaintiff’s action is also otherwise improper because
`the plaintiff is attempting an end run around the probate court and proper probate court
`procedures. Of course, the probate court has original jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claim that it
`is owed legal fees for work on the Estate of Jacqueline Boley. The plaintiff’s direct action
`against the trustee in this case is improper. To the extent this court can take judicial notice of
`probate court proceedings, the undersigned has appended hereto as Exhibit A, the plaintiff’s
`Motion to Authorize Payment for Legal Representation Provided, improperly dated June 2, 2020
`and actually certified as have been mailed and filed, and actually filed in the probate court in Old
`Saybrook, on May 24, 2021, as well as Exhibit B, also appended hereto, the plaintiff’s
`Withdrawal of its Motion to Authorize Payment for Legal Representation Provided, improperly
`dated June 7, 2020 and actually certified as have been mailed and filed, and actually filed in the
`
`4
`
`

`

`As noted above, a motion to strike is properly granted where the complaint “alleges mere
`
`conclusions of law that are unsupported by the facts alleged.” Novametrix Medical Systems, Inc.,
`
`224 Conn. at 215. Such is the case here. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s First Count, sounding in
`
`Breach of Contract, must be stricken.
`
`B.
`
`The Complaint Fails to Allege a Claim for Unjust Enrichment:
`
`The Complaint fails to state a claim for unjust enrichment. “Plaintiffs seeking recovery for
`
`unjust enrichment must plead and prove: “(1) that the defendants were benefitted, (2) that the
`
`defendants unjustly did not pay the plaintiffs for the benefits, and (3) that the failure of payment was
`
`to the plaintiffs' detriment.” Polverari v. Peatt, 29 Conn. App. 191, 200–01 (1992), cert. denied, 224
`
`Conn. 913 (1992), quoting Bolmer v. Kocet, 6 Conn.App. 595, 612–13 (1986). Of course, in this
`
`case, there is not a single allegation that the defendant ever sought or obtained the plaintiff’s claimed
`
`services for its own benefit or for the benefit of anyone else; also the Complaint is entirely bereft of
`
`a single allegation – or even any information indicating – that the plaintiff provided any service at
`
`all from which the defendant derived any benefit or that the defendant was benefitted in any way or
`
`probate court in Old Saybrook on June 7, 2021. As the Court can see for itself, the two bills for
`legal services appended to the Complaint in this action, for $2,880.00 and $6,650.00, are the
`same bills that were submitted to the probate Court in the plaintiff’s Motion to Authorize
`Payment for Legal Representation Provided improperly dated June 2, 2020 and certified and filed
`on May 24, 2021. Also, significant is the fact that these bills, as stated thereon, were submitted
`for payment to one “Margaret Cunningham – Trustee,” and not to the defendant, Wells Fargo
`Bank, N.A., Trustee of the Jacqueline Boley Revocable Trust U/A Dated October 15, 2013.
`
`5
`
`

`

`even how the defendant could have benefitted from the services the plaintiff claims to have provided,
`
`much less an allegation that the defendant was enriched or “unjustly enriched.” “A motion to strike
`
`is properly granted where the complaint “alleges mere conclusions of law that are unsupported by
`
`the facts alleged.” Novametrix Medical Systems, Inc., 224 Conn. at 215. Such is the case with the
`
`Second Count of the plaintiff’s Complaint, and, therefore, the plaintiff’s Second Count, sounding
`
`in unjust enrichment, must be stricken.
`
`C.
`
`The Complaint Fails to Allege a Claim for Quantum Meruit:
`
`The Complaint also fails to allege any facts that would support the plaintiff’s claims under
`
`the related theory of quantum meruit. The Connecticut Supreme Court case, Gagne v. Vaccaro, 255
`
`Conn. 390 (2001), and the cases it cites, explain the circumstances under which the equitable remedy
`
`of quantum meruit is available, in the following quoted passage:
`
`“Quantum meruit is a theory of contract recovery that does not depend upon the
`existence of a contract, either express or implied in fact. Gustave Fischer Co. v.
`Morrison, 137 Conn. 399, 403, 78 A.2d 242 (1951). Rather, quantum meruit
`arises out of the need to avoid unjust enrichment to a party, even in the absence of
`an actual agreement. Fischer v. Kennedy, 106 Conn. 484, 492, 138 A. 503 (1927);
`see also Sidney v. DeVries, 215 Conn. 350, 351–52 n. 1, 575 A.2d 228 (1990)
`(quantum meruit and unjust enrichment are common-law principles of restitution;
`both are noncontractual means of recovery without valid contract). Quantum
`meruit literally means “ ‘as much as he has deserved’....” Black's Law Dictionary
`(7th Ed.1999). Centered on the prevention of injustice, quantum meruit strikes the
`appropriate balance by evaluating the equities and guaranteeing that the party who
`has rendered services receives a reasonable sum for those services. Unjust
`enrichment applies whenever “justice requires compensation to be given for
`property or services rendered under a contract, and no remedy is available by an
`action on the contract....” 12 S. Williston, Contracts (3d Ed.1970) § 1479, p. 272.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Indeed, lack of a remedy under the contract is a precondition for recovery based
`upon unjust enrichment. Not unlike quantum meruit, it is a doctrine based on the
`postulate that it is contrary to equity and fairness for a defendant to retain a benefit
`at the expense of the plaintiff. See National CSS, Inc. v. Stamford, 195 Conn. 587,
`597, 489 A.2d 1034 (1985).
`
`Id., at 401.
`
`“Quantum meruit is the remedy available to a party when the trier of fact determines that an
`
`implied contract for services existed between the parties, and that, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled
`
`to the reasonable value of services rendered . . . The pleadings must allege facts to support the theory
`
`that the defendant, by knowingly accepting the services of the plaintiff and representing to her that
`
`she would be compensated in the future, impliedly promised to pay her for the services she
`
`rendered.” Jester Properties, LLC v. Cohen, No. CV095029073S, 2010 WL 3447804 (Wilson,
`
`J.)(J.D. of New Haven; August 5, 2010)(Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.), at *3,
`
`quoting Schreiber v. Connecticut Surgical Group, P.C., 96 Conn.App. 731, 737, 901 A.2d 1277,
`
`1281 (2006) Moreover, “[c]onsidering that each element of a cause of action must be set forth in
`
`its entirety within its own count, even when construing the pleadings in the manner most favorable
`
`to sustaining their legal sufficiency[,]” where one element of a cause of action is not set forth in its
`
`entirety within its own count, the cause of action must be stricken. Id. at * 4.
`
`In this case, of course, the Complaint wholly fails to allege any facts that would “support the
`
`theory that the defendant, by knowingly accepting the services of the plaintiff and representing to
`
`[the plaintiff ] that [it] be would be compensated in the future, impliedly promised to pay [it] for the
`
`7
`
`

`

`services she rendered.” Schreiber, 96 Conn.App. at 737 (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In this
`
`case, the Complaint does not even allege that the defendant was aware of the services the plaintiff
`
`claims it rendered, much less that the defendant “knowingly accepted” or “represented” that the
`
`plaintiff “would be compensated” or otherwise “impliedly promised” to pay the plaintiff. Id. In this
`
`case the plaintiff has failed completely to allege any of the elements of a claim for quantum meruit.
`
`Moreover, the plaintiff’s allegation that “the Defendant and Plaintiff’s course of conduct
`
`implied a promise by Defendant to pay Plaintiff for its Legal Fees Due[,]” without any explication
`
`of a “course of conduct” whatsoever, much less one that “implied a promise to pay,” is nothing more
`
`than a bare legal conclusion that cannot suffice for the claim to survive a motion to strike. As noted
`
`above “[a] motion to strike is properly granted if the complaint alleges mere conclusions of law that
`
`are unsupported by the facts alleged.” Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. Alves, 262 Conn. 480,
`
`498 (2003), quoting Novametrix Medical Systems, Inc. v. BOC Group, Inc., 224 Conn. 210, 215
`
`(1992). Of course the plaintiff has alleged no facts to support its legal conclusion in this regard.
`
`Accordingly, the Third Count must also be stricken.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Conclusion
`
`For all of the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s motion to strike must be granted and the
`
`Complaint must be stricken in its entirety.
`
`THE DEFENDANT
`WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., TRUSTEE
`OF THE JACQUELINE BOYLE REVOCABLE
`TRUST U/A DATED OCTOBER 15, 2013
`
`By
`
`/s/ Stephen E. Pliakas (411917)
`Stephen E. Pliakas
`Tinley, Renehan & Dost, LLP
`255 Bank Street ~ Suite 2-A
`Waterbury, CT 06702
`Telephone: (203) 596-9030
`Facsimile: (203) 596-9036
`E-Mail: spliakas@tnrdlaw.com
`Juris No. 402031
`
`9
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATION
`
`THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT a copy of the foregoing Memorandum of Law in Support
`of Motion to Strike was or will immediately be mailed or delivered electronically or
`non-electronically on this 21st day of December 2021 to all counsel and self-represented parties of
`record and that written consent for electronic delivery was received from all counsel and
`self-represented parties of record who were or will immediately be electronically served as follows:
`
`Eric H. Opin, Esq.
`266 Broad Street, Suite H
`P.O. Box 412
`Milford, CT 06460
`E-Mail: attorneyopin@sbcglobal.net
`Counsel for plaintiff,
`Law Offices of Keith V. Sittnick, LLC
`
`/s/ Stephen E. Pliakas (411917)
`Stephen E. Pliakas
`Commissioner of the Superior Court
`
`10
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`MediaSet #0038 Page 06028
`
`:
`TN RE 20-0170
`:
`LOCATED IN
`JACQUELINE BOLEY REVOCABLE TRUST:
`
`SAYBROOK PROBATE COURT
`OLDSAYBROOK, CT
`JUNE2, 2026
`
`MOTION TO AUTHORIZE PAYMENT FOR LEGAL REPRESENTATION PROVIDED
`
`ISSUE
`
`The Saybrook Probate Court is currently the venue for the Jacqueline Boley Revacable Trust
`case, Connecticut statutes have stated that the Connecticut Probate Courts have the pewer to
`compel a trustee to provide for legal servicesrendered.
`
`RULE
`
`Sec. 45a-477. (Formerly Sec. 45-90). Jurisdiction of Probate Court over trusts administered
`outside of this state. Any oneor more ofthe beneficiaries ofa trust that is administered outside
`ofthis state who are residents ofthis state maypetition the Prohate Court specified in section
`45a-499p to assume jurisdiction ofsuch trust. In the petition, the beneficiaries shail allege that it
`wouid be in the best interest ofsomeor all ofthe beneficiaries and not adverse to any ofthe
`other beneficiaries to be administered in a Probate Court in this state or that all such beneficia!
`owners consentto the administration ofthe trust or custodianship in a Probate Court in this state.
`The Probate Court, after hearing with notice as it directs. including notice to any court having
`jurisdiction over the trust upon written consentofafl such beneficiaries or satistaction that the
`allegations in the petition are true and upon proofthat suck: transferis not prohibited by law, may
`assume jurisdiction. If a probate bondis required under the laws ofthe state in which the
`transferring court is located or this state, such bond shall be given to the Probate Court prior to
`the assumption ofjurisdiction by such court. Upon iransfer and assumption ofjurisdiction and
`administration of such trust to this state, the record shall be established in the Probate Court as if
`the trust were being originally established for administration in this state and the provisions of
`the general statutes shall govern the trust and its administration.
`
`See. 52-321. Liability of income of trust fund to creditors. Expenses of trustee. Except as
`provided in sections 52-321a and 52-352b:
`
`Received 05-24/21 3:51:51 PM Form set: 5739037
`
`

`

`MediaSet #0038 Page 0629
`
`(a) ifproperty has been given to trustees to pay over the income to any person, without provision
`for accumulation or express authorization to the trustees to withhold the income, and the income
`has not been expressly given for the support ofthe beneficiary or his family, the incomeshall be
`liable in equity to the claimsofall creditors ofthe beneficiary.
`
`(b) Any creditor ofthe beneficiary whohas secured ajudgmentagainst the beneficiary may
`bring an action against him andserve the trustees with garnishee process. and the court to which
`the action is returnable maydirect the trustees to pay over the net income derived from the trust
`estate to thejudgment creditor, as the income may accrue,until the creditor's debtis satisfied.
`
`(c) The court having jurisdiction over the fund may make such an order for payment pursuant to
`subsection (b) when the beneficiary is a nonresidentofthis state, as well as when the beneficiary
`is a resident, but in the case ofa nonresident beneficiary notice shall be given to the nonresident
`ofthe action against him as provided in section 52-87. The nonresidence ofthe beneficiary shall
`not deprive the court of authority to make such an order.
`
`(d) any such trust has been expressly provided to be for the support!ofthe beneficiary or his
`family, a court ofequity having jurisdiction may make such order regarding the surplus, if ary.
`not required for the support ofthe beneficiary or his family, asjustice and equity may require.
`ie} The. defendanttrustee in any such action shail be entitled to charge in the administration
`account ofthe trust such expenses and disbursements as the court to which the action is brought
`determines to be reasonable and proper.
`
`APPLICATION
`
`This attorney, Keith V. Siumick. has provided legal services (see attached) for Lilwani (AKA
`Rache!) Acquaviva on matters involving the Jacqueline Boley Trust. Ms. Acquaviva is the
`daughter ofJacqueline Bole. The Trust was established to provide for the weil-being ofLilwani
`Boley.
`
`Paymentfor services rendered were initially paid when Margaret Cunninghan was the
`administrator ef the estate.
`
`However, after several altempts to obtain payment for mylegal services (see attached), | have
`not received monies on the matter. Jonathan P, Miller. V.P. of Wells Fargo Private Bank has yet
`to pay for my services on behalf of Ms. Acquaviva.
`
`Wells Fargo has an obligation to pay for services rendered to Ms. Acquaviva or her biologicai
`child.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Received 05.24/21 3:31:51 PM Form set: 5739037
`
`

`

`MediaSet #0038 Page 06930
`
`[am requesting the Saybrook Probate Court to authorize Wells Fargo to make payment for legal
`services rendered for Lilwani Acquaviva by mylawfirm.
`
`Respectfuily Submited
`
`to] ; we
`ay
`Keith V, Sitinick, Esq,
`
`od
`
`Juris Number 4256754
`
`Attorneyfor Lilwani (Rachael!) Acquaviva
`
`CERTIFICATION
`
`This is to certify that on the 24" ofMay, 2021, a copyofthe foregoing was mailed,
`postage prepared or otherwise transmitted to the following interested parties:
`
`Steven Allinson. Esq.
`439 Main Street
`Wallingford, CT 06492
`
`Jonathan P. Miller. V.P.
`Wells Fargo Private Bank
`190 River Road 2"¢ Fir
`Summitt, NI O791 7
`.
`7
`6.
`wat
`al
`j
`Oe ge nae "
`ait, . Ww Lats, wd co
`
`Keith V. Sittnick. Esq.
`
`Received 0524/21 3:31:51 PM Form set. 5739037
`
`

`

`Law offices of Keith V. Sitinick LL
`338 Shore Drive
`Branford. CT 06405
`
`BillTo:
`Margaret Cunningham-Trustee
`268 Winthrop St
`New Britain, CT 06052
`Re: Estate J. Boley
`
`Media3et #0038 Page 06031
`
`Invoice #: 44 72
`lnvoice Date: 1/8/2620
`Due Date: 1/8/2020
`Case:
`P.O. Number:
`
`Date
`1/1/2020
`
`1/6/2020
`14712020
`1/7/2020
`1/7/2020
`1448/2020
`1/8/2020
`1/16/2020
`
`1/18/2020
`1/16/2020
`
`‘Description
`ESTATE OF JACQUELINE BOLEY
`Muitipletextsand responseswithLilwani (Rachel)
`Acquaviva regarding the Jacqueline Boley Trust and
`the Coops AND the 1/8/2020 at 10:00 AM in Old
`Saybrook.
`ContactOld SaybrookProbateCourttoobtain
`updated materials, review Petition for Distnibution
`and Bruno Boley Irrevocable Trust
`TravelfoOldSaybrookfromBranford
`ProbateHearing-PetitionforDistribution
`TraveltoBranfordfromOldSaybrook
`ReporttoMs, Liwani(Rachel)Acquavivaregarding
`outcame ofhearing and Attomey Silberman's
`possible PUR against property in Coop
`Telephonecall toAtty. JeffreyCrowne'sofficeto
`obtain Atty. Lawrence Sitberman's telephone
`number
`TelephoneconversationwithaitomeyLawrence
`Silberman regarding my cliew3nts alleged faiiure to
`provide herunclewith his share ofthe apartnentin
`NYC sales:
`ReviewedwebsiteforcaseprovidedbyAttormey
`Drafted and texted response to 1/7/2020 probate
`hearing in old Saybrook and an update
`informational on AttomeySilberman representing
`Lilwani's uncle Daniel in the sale of the apartmants
`
`Siiberman
`
`Hours/Qty
`06
`
`Rate
`400.60
`
`Amount
`240.00
`
`1
`07
`1
`o.7
`0.4
`0.2
`1
`
`6.8
`08
`
`400.00
`406.00
`400.06
`490.00
`400.00
`400.00
`400.00
`
`400.00
`490.00
`
`400.00
`280.60
`400.00
`280.00
`180.00
`80.06
`400.90
`
`320.06
`320.00
`
`Phone #
`Fax
`E-Mail
`203-488-5822 203-488-5899 AttySittnick-Law@yahoo.c_.
`
`Tota!
`
`$2,880.00
`
`Payments/Credits
`
`$5.00
`
`Balance Dus
`
`$2,880.90
`
`

`

`Law officesof Keith V. Sitinick LLC
`338 Shore Drive
`Branford, CT 06405
`
`Bill To:
`Margaret Cunningham-Trustee
`268 Winthrop St.
`New Britain, CT 06052
`Re: Estate J. Boley
`
`MediaSet #¢038 Fage 76072
`
`Invoice #: 4472
`Inveice Date: 1/8/2020
`Due Date: 1/8/2020
`Case:
`FeO. Munters
`
`Date
`1/1/2020
`
`1/6/2020
`1/7/2020
`1/7/2020
`77/2020
`1/48/2020
`1/8/2020
`1/16/2020
`
`1/16/2020
`14/18/2020
`
`Description
`ESTATE OF JACQUELINE BOLEY
`Multiple texts and responses with Litwani {Rachel}
`Acquaviva regarding the Jacqueline Boley Trust and
`the Coops ANDthe 1/8/2020 at 10:00 AM in Old
`Saybrook.
`Contact Oid Saybrook Probate Courtto obtain
`updated materials, review Petition for Distribution
`and Bruno Boley trrevocabie Trust
`Travel toOld Saybrook from Branford
`Probate Hearing- Petition forDistribution
`Travelto Branford from Old Saybrook
`Reportic Ms, Lihwani (Rachel)Acquaviva regarding
`outcome of hearing and Attorney Sitberman's
`possible PJR against property in Coop.
`Telephone cailto Atty. JeffreyCrowne'sofficefo
`obtain Alty. Lawrence Sitherman's telephone
`number
`Telephone conversation with attorney Lawrence
`Silberman regarding my cliew3nts alieged failure to
`provide her uncle with his share ofthe apartment in
`NYC sales.
`Reviewed web siteforcase provided by Attarney
`Drafted and texted response fo 1/7/2020probate
`hearing in old Saybrook and an update.
`informational on Aitomey Sitberman representing
`Liwarf's uncle Daniel in the sale of the apartments.
`
`Silberman
`
`Hours/Oty
`6.6
`
`Rate
`400.00
`
`Amount
`240.00
`
`1
`0.7
`1
`0.7
`4
`6.2
`1
`
`0.8
`0.8
`
`400.00
`400.00
`400.00
`400.00
`400.00
`406.00
`400.00
`
`400.CO
`400.06
`
`400.00
`280.00
`400.00
`280.00
`480 00
`80.90
`400.90
`
`320.00
`320.00
`
`Phone #
`Fax:
`E-Mail
`203-488-5822 203-488-5822 AttySitinick-Law@yahoo.c...
`
`Tota!
`
`$2,880.06
`
`Payments/Credits
`
`$0.00
`
`Baiance Due
`
`$2,880.06
`
`

`

`Law offices of Keith V.Sittnick LLC
`338 Shore Drive
`Branford, CT 06405
`
`Bill To:
`Margaret Cunningham-Trustee
`268 Winthrop St.
`New Britain,CT 06052
`Re: Estate J. Boley
`
`LEGAL FEES
`
`document
`
`Description
`Correspondencewith Ms. Acquaviva regarding
`Motion for Accounting
`Correspondencewith Ms. Acquaviva regarding
`Motion for Accounting
`Research beneficiaries rightsforTrustSituations
`Prepare and efile Motion forAccounting
`Telephoneconversation with Saybrook Probate
`.
`Court re: Appearance forthis case.
`Prepare and file PC-183 Appearancefor Estateof
`Jacqueline Boley andClarification Notice ofMotion
`Prepare, efile and mail Clarificationoftems
`Review Responsefrom Atty CrowndatedJune 16,
`2020. and request for information. and telephone
`Conversation with client regarding this matter.
`Research- Response tochange ofTrustee &
`Draftand¢-file-Responseto change ofTrustee &
`Probate Hearing- FinalAccounting-Periodic
`Probate Courtfees
`
`Termination of Estate
`
`Termination of Estate
`
`accounting
`EXPENSES
`
`Date-
`3/3/2020
`3/5/2620
`3/6/2020
`3/12/2020
`3/18/2026
`3/19/2020
`6/2/2020
`6/18/2020
`7/8/2020
`7176/2020
`7122/2020
`7/29/2020
`
`MediaSet #0038 efage 06033
`
`Invoice #: 4230
`invoice Date: 3/4 2/2020
`Due Date: 3/12/2020
`2
`Case:
`PQ. Nanber
`
`Rate
`400.00
`400.00
`400.00
`400.00
`409.00
`400.00
`400.00
`400.00
`400.00
`400.00
`460.00
`250 060
`
`Amount
`166.00
`166.00
`1.200.00
`800.006
`80.00
`400.00
`400.00
`400.00
`890.00
`1,600.90
`406.00
`250.00
`
`Hours/Qty
`3.4
`0.4
`3
`2
`0.2
`1
`1
`4
`zZ
`4
`1
`
`E-Malt
`Fax.
`Phone #
`203-488-5822 203-488-5822 AitySittnick-Law@yahoo.c...
`
`Total
`
`$6,650.00
`
`Paymenis/Credits
`
`$0.96
`
`Balance Due
`
`$6,650.00
`
`

`

`Law offices of Keith V. Sittnick LLC
`338 Shore Drive
`Branford, CT 06405
`
`Bill To:
`Margaret Cunningham-Trustee
`268 Winthrop St.
`New Britain, CT 06052
`Re: Estate J. Boley
`
`LEGAL FEES
`
`document
`
`Description
`Correspondencewith Ms. Acquavivaregarding
`Motion for Accaunting
`Correspondencewith Ms. Acquavivaregarding
`Motion forAccounting
`Research beneficiaries rights forTrustsituations
`Prepareandeffle MotionforAccounting
`Telephoneconversation with Saybrook Probate
`Court re. Appearance forthis case
`Prepareand file PC-183Appearance forEsiate af
`Jacqueline Boley and Clarification Notice of Motion
`Prepare,efile and mail Clarificationofitems
`ReviewResponsefrom Aity Crowndated June 76,
`2020. and request for information. and telephone
`conversation with client regarding this matter.
`Research-ResponsetochangeofTrustee&
`Draftande-file-ResponsetochangeofTrustee&
`Probate Hearing- FinalAccounting-Periodic
`Probate Courtfees
`
`Termination of Estate
`
`Termination of Estate
`
`accounting
`EXPENSES
`
`Date
`3/3/2020
`3/5/2020
`3/6/2026
`3/12/2020
`3/18/2020
`3/15/2020
`6/2/2020
`6/16/2020
`7/8/2020
`7716/2020
`7/22/2020
`7129/2029
`
`MediaSet #0038 Page 96044
`
`invoice #: 4930
`Invoice Date: 3/12/2020
`Due Date: 3/12/2020
`*
`‘Case:
`ae
`
`Rate
`400.00
`400.00
`400.00
`400.90
`400.00
`400.C0
`400.00
`400.00
`436.00
`400.90
`400.00
`250.00
`
`Amount
`160.00
`160.00
`1,260.00
`800.00
`80.06
`400.00
`400.00
`400.00
`800.00
`1,600.00.
`400.00
`250.00
`
`Hours/Qty
`0.4
`04
`3
`2
`02
`1
`1
`1
`2
`4
`4
`
`E-Mail
`Fax:
`Phone#
`203-488-5822 203-488-5822 AttySitinick-Law@yahoo.c...
`
`Total
`
`$6,650.00
`
`Payments/Credits
`
`30.00
`
`Baiance Due
`
`$8,650.0C
`
`

`

`MediaSet #0034 Fage 06035
`
`Law offices of Keith Y. Sittnick LLC
`Attorney and Counselor ar Law
`338 Shore Drive, Branford, Connecticut 06405
`Telephone {203488-5822
`Keith V. Sittnick BS MBA JD — attystttnick-law@Yahoo.Com
`
`July 28, 2026
`
`Jonathan P, Miller, V.P.
`Wells Fargo Private Bank
`190 River Road 224 Fir
`Summitt, NJ 07301
`
`RE: Jacqueline Boley Irrevocable Trus-
`
`Mr. Milier,
`
`(Rachel )j)Acquaviva to
`My law office has been retained by Lilwani
`represent her in court actions and proceeding in the estate of
`her mother Cacqueline Boley.
`
`I have provided Ms. Acquaviva with updates on all cecurt matters
`and also your contact information.
`
`the estate has paid for one of my bills.
`to date,
`Furthermore,
`However, I am presenting 2 bills for services randereé in 2020.
`The check{s} can be sent to the address provided on the head cf
`the bills or the header on this correspondence.
`
`Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
`
`Keith V. Sittnick, zsg
`Juris Number 225654
`ctorney for Jacqueline Boley
`
`

`

`MediaSet #0038 Page 06026
`
`Lawoffices of Keith V. Sittnick LLC
`Attomey and Counselor at Law
`338 Shore Drive, Branford, Connecticut 06405
`Telephone (263 488-5822
`Keith V. Sittnick BS MBA JD — attysirtnick-law@Yahoo.Com
`september 17, 202¢
`
`Jonathan P. Miller, V.f.
`Weilis Fargo Private Bank
`190 River Poad 2™ Fir
`Sumaitt, NJ O7gsi
`
`RE: Cacqueline Boley Irrevocable Trust
`
`SECOND ATTEMPT TO COLLECT A DEST
`
`Mr. Miller,
`
`(Rachel) Acquaviva to
`My law office has been retained by Lilwani
`represent her in court actions and preceeding in the estate of
`her mecther Jacqueline Boley.
`tT have provided Ms. Acquaviva with updates on all court matters
`and also your contact information.
`
`the estate has paid for one of my bilis.
`to date,
`Furthermore,
`However, I am presenting 2 bills for services rendered in 20622.
`The checkis) can be sent +o tke address provided on the head of
`the bills cr the header on this correspondence.
`Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
`
`Keith V. Sittnick, Eso
`Juris Number 225654
`Attorney for Jacqueline Boley.
`
`

`

`oe
`
`MediaSet #0938 Page 06037
`
`=_
`
`Law offices of Keith V. Sittnick LLC
`Attorney end Counselor at Law
`338 Shore Drive, Branford, Connecticut 06405
`Telephone (203 488-5822
`Keith V. Sittnick BS MBA JD ~ ateysitmnick-law@Yahoo.Com
`
`November 30, 2020
`
`Jonathan P. Miller, V.P.
`Wells Fargo Private Bank
`i90 River Road 224 Fir
`Summitt, No 57901
`
`RE: Jacqueline Boley Irrevocable Trust
`
`THIRD ATTEMPT TO COLLECT A DEBT
`
`Mr. Milier,
`
`(Rachel )Acquaviva to
`My law office has been retained by Lilwani
`represent her in court actions and proceeding in the estate of
`her mother Jacqueline Boley.
`
`i have provided Ms. Acquaviva with updates on all court matters
`and also your contact information.
`
`the estate has paid for one of my bills.
`to date,
`Purthermore,
`However, I am presenting 2 bills for services rendered in 2020.
`The check(s) can be sent to the address provided on the head of
`the bills or the header on this correspondence.
`
`Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
`paTe
`toe
`=
`
`~Reith v. Sittnick, Esq
`Juris Number 225654
`Attorney for Lilwani Acquaviva
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT B
`
`

`

`SAYBROOK PROBATE COURT
`:
`IN RE 20-0170
`OLD SAYBROOK, CT
`;
`LOCATED IN
`
`JACQUELINE BOLEY REVOCABLE TRUST—: JUNE 7, 2020
`
`
`
`To the clerk and all parties ofrecord
`The Saybrook Probate Court iscurrently the venue fortheJacqueline Boley RevocableTrust
`
`case.
`
`Effective Immediately. Pleaser withdraw my motion to authorize paymentfor legal services
`rendered againstthe Trust
`
`Respectfully Submitted
`
` Keith V ittnick, Esq.
`
`Juris Number 4256754
`
`CERTIFICATION
`This is to certify that on the 7" ofFune, 2021, a copy ofthe foregoing was mailed,
`postage preparedor otherwise transmitted to the following interested parties:
`
`Steven Allinson, Esq.
`439 Main Street
`Wallingford, CT 06492
`
`Recerved 0607/21 11:15:55 AM Form set’ 5778998
`
`

`

`Jonathan P. Miller, VP.
`Wells Fargo Private Bank
`190 River Road 2™ Fir
`Summitt, NJ 0791
`
`Lilwani Acquaviva
`6356 Northwest 61* Street
`
`Oscala, Florida 3448
`
`
`Received 06/07/21 11:15:55 AM Form set: 5778998
`
`