Posted on 02/18/2012 7:21:49 PM PST by FailDaily.TK
Peter Kantorowski wanted his 98-year-old mother to move into a nursing home or live with him. She wouldn't go; she didn't want to leave her home of nearly 60 years.
Finally, Kantorowski went to court – and served his mother with an eviction notice shortly before her 98th birthday in December.
Mary Kantorowski says she won't leave the small yellow house she's been in since 1953, raising her two sons and cooking for the church she attended daily. The house her late husband wanted her to stay in until she died; the house she says is her "everything."
"I don't know why he wants me to leave," she said Friday.
The epic mother-son feud is headed to court next month.
Peter Kantorowski, 71, became the owner of the Fairfield home several years ago when his mother transferred ownership to him but retained the right to live there, in what's known as a quit claim, Mary Kantorowski's attorney said.
The retired taxidermist said he's concerned about her well-being, that she's seemed disoriented and has been living in poor condition.
"I'm not throwing her on the street," he told WTNH-TV in New Haven. "At her age, at 98, I'm sure that she should be with people of her peers. She should have her meals on time."
Peter Kantorowski and his attorney didn't return telephone messages left by The Associated Press on Friday.
Mary Kantorowski's attorney, Richard Bortolot Jr., said she can take of herself, still does some of her own cooking and is seen regularly in her home by doctors and nurses. A judge ruled she was competent and appointed Bortolot to represent her in the eviction.
Her younger son, Jack Kantorowski, says his mother is in relatively good health. He's on his mother's side of the family feud.
"If there is a money problem or anything else, he should have said something a long time ago instead of just trying to get rid of his own mother," Jack Kantorowski said.
Peter Kantorowski, who lives about 20 minutes away in Trumbull, hasn't seen his mother for eight months, her attorney said.
"I'm appalled a son would do this," Bortolot said.
Jack Kantorowski said his father worked multiple jobs to buy the house and built additions over the years.
"He was always trying to protect my mom; she'd always have a place to live," he said. "If something happens to me, there was always going to be a home for her to stay for the rest of her life."
Peter Kantorowski filed a complaint against his mother in December after she refused to follow an eviction notice filed Nov. 30 to vacate the premises by Dec. 7. A trial is set to begin March 2 in Bridgeport Superior Court.
Bortolot says a probate court stopped Peter Kantorowski from trying to sell the house, valued at $330,000, after the eviction papers were served.
Asked where she might live next, Mary Kantorowski's voice catches.
"I don't feel very good about it," she says. "I want to stay right here in my own home."
Words fail me. I hope there is more to this story that makes it somehow comprehensible, rather than reprehensible.
It sounds like she is fully capable of living alone. That $330,000 house is burning a hole in her son’s pocket.
I agree, he should have waited until the day after.
did he make her carry his barbells into the attic?
What if he cannot afford to wait until she is dead?
He is 71 himself, so his best earning years are behind him.
She transferred the house to this ungrateful S.O.B. presumably on the advice of a lawyer, because of our tax laws. presumably she wanted to avoid that damned death tax.
It sounds as if she left it to the wrong son. Taxidermist, eh? He should get stuffed.
If she has a life tenancy, and I hope she does, he can’t evict her, if she didn’t get one she was stupid to sign over her home to a relative(even one of her children, sometimes the worse villains when it comes to old people), but parents do tend to trust their children.
She needs to make him go outside and get a switch for her.
Whether she belongs in a nursing home or in her son’s house or not, it’s her choice to die where she wants.
The mother is 98 years old. It’s possible the son is simply worried about her. Besides, the son is 71. He’s more or less had financial control of the house for several years now. He’s finally making a move. I doubt he’s doing it to live a life of wine, women and song.
When my Mom was in her 70’s, she volunteered to audit some of these cases where a relative had taken over for someone deemed incapable. (She was a bookkeeper and business manager.) Funny how the relatives had to take the old person on expensive vacations with all the rest of the family in tow.
She also did the “Meals on Wheels” thing. Took lunch to the “old ladies” as she said, LOL. Now at 83, she volunteers at the local hospital front desk one day a week to head people to the right department.
I can understand her desire to remain there - at this stage probably all she has left is the memories of her husband and family there. As long as she can function there, why not? Her son could arrange for some housekeeping and nurse visitation, etc.
This article angered me more than most.
The son is a bastard.
I know what this is all about. He has waited years for her to leave that house one way or another so that he can sell it and have some bucks in the bank. She is nearly one hundred and doesnt seem to be going anywhere soon. He is just forcing the issue. If he needs the money and is not planning on leaving the house to anyone, he should take out a reverse mortgage.The house is in his name, after all. This way he has money, and the mother can stay.
I think the son has 330,000 reasons to want her out.
If he was really that concerned about her he would hire someone to look in on her. It is a shame he is making his poor mother miserable for her last few seasons on this earth. My parents both died when I was fairly young so I can’t really speak too much on this, but I would of loved very much to have my mother alive and happy in my boyhood home. A person should not value wealth beyond family.
As long as she lives there all is well, but if she leaves residence and goes on medicaid within a certain number of years (five in Ohio), the property is still subject to lien and sale and the proceeds go to reimburse the state, even though he has title to it.
My guess is, he waited the necessary time for the lookback period to expire, so the property transfer is unencumbered. Now he is free to sell the house and keep the money--except now she won't leave. So that's what I think precipitated this move at this time--he would have done it earlier but couldn't because he'd have lost the money from the house.
Of course you are right, that’s why he lives 20 minutes away and hasn’t seen her in 8 months.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.