IN RE: Estate of Mary M. Banning (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Plaintiff The Particular Council, Society of St. Vincent dePaul of Hartford, Inc. appeals a decision of Hartford Probate

The Missions of Waterbury uses the Banning funds to support a homeless shelter for men, women and children, and a soup kitchen that serves four hundred hot meals to the local indigent community six days a week.   The Mission of Bristol uses the Banning funds to help operate a twenty-five bed emergency shelter for men, women and children that provides food, shelter, case management and referral services.   Both these organizations employ case managers who meet with the clients with an ultimate goal to help them achieve self sufficiency.

Further facts will be stated in the course of construing the subject bequest.

The issue before this court, is the construction of a will, which is a question of law.  Connecticut National Bank & Trust Co. v. Chadwick, 217 Conn. 260, 266 (1991).   The duty of the court is to construe the will to determine the intent of the testatrix as gleaned from the language of the instrument.   As stated in Canaan Nat. Bank v. Peters, 217 Conn. 330, 335-36 (1991):

“Our primary objective in construing the ․ testatrix's will is to ascertain and effectuate her intent.   In searching for that intent, we look first to the precise wording employed by the testatrix in her will;  for the meaning of the words, as used by the testatrix, is the equivalent of her legal intention-the intention that the law recognizes as dispositive.  ‘The question is not what [s]he meant to say, but what is meant by what [s]he did say.’  “ (Citations omitted.)

Plaintiff's first argument is that the fact that the Archbishop distributed the income of the Banning Trust to the plaintiff for forty-eight years is strong evidence of the party's interpretation of the meaning of the disputed bequest.   As stated in Polk v. Polk Manufacturing Co., Inc., 101 Conn. 594, 600-01 (1924):

“[T]he law admits evidence of the practical construction of this contract by the words, acts and conduct of the parties.   Such evidence, in the case of doubtful construction, is strong presumptive evidence of the intention of the party that the contract should be construed in accordance with their own practical construction.   This rule is applied to the construction of contracts, documents, deeds and laws.”

In Easterbrook v. Hebrew Ladies Orphan Society, 85 Conn. 289, 306 (1912), the court, relying on the practical construction of a deed by subsequent property owners for seventy-six years after the deed was executed, said “The practical construction of the parties is all but controlling in cases of ambiguity.”

But practical construction as “strong presumptive evidence of the intention of the parties” that is “all but controlling” does not carry this court to a firm conclusion as to meaning of the subject bequest.   The court is still obligated to construe the specific words of the bequest and reach a conclusion as to intent of the testator.   In this case the operative words are:  “one-fifth thereof to the Roman Catholic Bishop of Hartford for use by him for the work of the St. Vincent dePaul Society.”

While the bequest must be construed as a whole, it is helpful to parse its three main phrases separately.   The first phrase is “to the Roman Catholic Bishop of Hartford.”   It is conceded that reference is to the Archbishop of the Hartford Diocese.   Defendants point out that the bequest is not to plaintiff The Particular Council, Society of St. Vincent dePaul of Hartford, Inc. The four other charitable recipients of one-fifth of the income in the Banning will are named specifically, i.e. Newington Catholic Mission Aid Society of the Hartford Diocese, Inc.;   Newington Home for Crippled Children;  Hartford Times Farm Fund;  and Hartford Courant Company of Hartford for use of its summer camp.   Thus, the defendants argue that if Mrs. Banning intended to make a gift to plaintiff The Particular Council Society of St. Vincent dePaul of Hartford, Inc., she could have specifically named it in her will.

However, the facts are that The Particular Council of the Society has no address and no staff.   The “Roman Catholic Bishop of Hartford” is a specific person of permanent identity and located at a specific address.   As the evidence indicated, there has always been a close relationship between the Catholic church and the Society.   Moreover, it was and still is the common practice for many Catholic donors to contact the local bishop and donate or make bequests to the Society through his chancery office.   Thus, the first phrase is not conclusive of the intention of Banning as to the ultimate beneficiary of her legacy.

The second phrase “one fifth thereof to the Roman Catholic Bishop of Hartford for use by him ․” does reveal an intention that the Archbishop exercise his discretion.   That phrase is the basis of the decision of the Probate Judge and of the strongest assertion by the defendants.

However that discretion is limited by the third phrase:  “for the work of The St. Vincent dePaul Society.”

The defendants, Henry J. Mansell and Archdiocese of Hartford, point to the primary work of the Society to provide for the poor and needy.   The Archbishop, since 2005, has distributed funds from the Banning Trust to the St. Vincent dePaul Mission of Waterbury and of Bristol.   These organizations serve the poor through soup kitchens and shelters for the homeless.   The funds are used, defendants claim, “to carry out the type of work done by the St. Vincent dePaul Society.”   Defendants further assert in their brief that “in the context of this will, this language must be given a broader meaning, and that the words were used in a generic sense to refer to basic, front line work to help the poor and needy under the patronage of St. Vincent dePaul.”

However, the words of the bequest are not to be given “a broader meaning” or deemed used “in a generic sense.”   The words are to be given a specific meaning.   In this instance the bequest is for the work of The Particular Council, St. Vincent dePaul Society.   The article “The” connotes a specific organization.

Moreover the Society is a distinctive organization and performs its work in a distinctive way.   It is composed of Catholic laypersons who are volunteers and not paid.   No Catholic clergy are allowed as members.   This distinguishes it from the St. Vincent dePaul Missions of Waterbury and of Bristol which do have clergy members.   The Archbishop of Hartford is the president of each organization who attends at least one meeting of each organization annually.   In contrast to the Society, the Missions have a paid executive director and case managers.

The Society performs its work of caring for the poor in the following distinctive ways:

First, the work of its members, called Vincentians, is not only to benefit the poor but also to enable them by helping others to “journey together toward holiness.”   As the “Rule” of the Society states:  “They draw nearer to Christ, serving Him in the poor and one another, they grow more perfect in love by expressing compassion and tender love to the poor and one another.”

Second, the Manual of the Society provides:  “From the Society's beginning, the central and most basic activity of Conferences has been the visitation of the needy in their homes.   This is the clearest symbol of our Vincentian charism which dictates the highest respect for the dignity of the poor ․ In the home, needy persons feel most free to confide their stories of struggle.   In that family setting, Vincentians are asked to listen, offer humble advice, and render assistance.”

The Society's primary emphasis upon home visits distinguishes it from the missions of Waterbury and Bristol which only occasionally do home visits.

Third, the Vincentians do their work by always visiting homes in pairs.   As the Manual states:  “This practice emphasizes the Conference's status as a community, not a collection of individuals who ‘do their own thing.’  “ The Manual further provides the visiting team is ideally composed of Vincentians of both genders, various age groups and different life experiences “so that a better perspective of the needy person's situation can be gained, and various courses of action explored ․ The precedent was set by Christ himself, when He sent out the Apostles two by two.”   There is no evidence that the missions of Waterbury and Bristol follow this practice.

Finally, the members of the society must undergo specialized training through workshops, practical experience, and reading the Society's Guide.

Thus, the Society in these particulars is a unique organization and its work is unique.   It follows that the work of The St. Vincent dePaul Society can only be performed by members of The St. Vincent dePaul Society.   To carry out the intention of the will it is not enough that funds from the trust be used for “a purpose consistent with the mission of the Vincent de Paul Society” as the Probate Court decision says, but rather that funds be used “for the work of The St. Vincent de Paul Society.”   That work can be performed only by that Society in its own distinctive way.

Thus, the court construes the intention of Mrs. Banning in her will to be that the funds from her trust should go to the plaintiff The Particular Council, St. Vincent dePaul Society of Hartford, Inc.

The court sustains the plaintiff's appeal of the decision of the Hartford Probate Court.   That decision is reversed.   Judgment may enter in favor of the plaintiff, and the Archbishop is directed to pay one-fifth of the income from the Banning Trust to plaintiff The Particular Council, St. Vincent dePaul Society.

Satter, JTR

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

Satter, Robert, J.T.R.