COMPLAINT AND/OR COUNTERCLAIM

Pursuant to CT Practice Book Section 10-10, & 10-54, and CT Public Act 15-236
Section 3(1)&(3)Louis J. Russo, hereinafter referred to as Counterclaim Plaintiff
complains and for causes of action alleges as follows:
COUNT ONE
1. Counterclaim Plaintiff, Louis J. Russo , D.O.B., Aug, 1,1918 is an individual and
is now, and at all times mentioned in this complaint, the property owner and
resident of 27 Hammond Rd, in the Town of New Fairfield, Fairfield County,
Connecticut.
2. Defendant (1) Mark Broadmeyer, is an individual, was serving as Louis Russos
first appointed involuntary Conservator of Person and Estate under the CT
Probate Court and is a resident of the Town of Brookfield, Fairfield County
Connecticut, a self employed conservator for the CT Probate Court, with a
mailing address of PO Box 534, Brookfield.
3. Defendant (2) HBR Danbury, LLC (aka, Genesis Healthcare, aka, Pope John
Paul II Center) is now, and at all times mentioned in this complaint, carrying out
services located at 33 Lincoln Ave., in the Town of Danbury, Fairfield County,
Connecticut.
4. Defendant (3) Attorney Richard Terbrusch at all times mentioned in this complaint
is an Attorney and owner of the Terbrusch Law Firm, was serving as Louis
Russos second appointed Attorney of Person and Estate under the CT Probate
Court and is now, and at all times mentioned in this complaint, conducting

business at 2 Terrace Place, in the Town of Danbury, Fairfield County,

Connecticut.
5. Defendant (4) Law Offices of Attorney Dean Lewis, at all times mentioned in this
complaint is an Attorney law firm, was serving as Counterclaim Plaintiff second
appointed Conservator of Person and Estate under the CT Probate Court and is
now, and at all times mentioned in this complaint, conducting business at 2
Terrace Place, in the Town of Danbury, Fairfield County, Connecticut.
6. Defendant (5) Housatonic Probate Court, at all times mentioned in this complaint
is a Connecticut Regional Probate Court, was serving in its capacity over the
involuntary conservation of Counterclaim Plaintiffs Person and Estate under the
CT Probate Court Laws and is now, and at all times mentioned in this complaint,
conducting business at 10 Main Street, in the Town of New Milford, Litchfield
County, Connecticut.
7. Defendant (6) Attorney Candace V. Fay, at all times mentioned in this complaint
is an Attorney law firm, was serving as Counterclaim Plaintiffs first involuntarily
appointed Attorney of Person and Estate under the CT Probate Court and is now,
and at all times mentioned in this complaint, conducting business at 118 Coalpit
Hill Road, in the Town of Danbury, Fairfield County, Connecticut.

Count Two.

Fraud or Intentional Misrepresentation

8. The Counterclaim Plaintiff claims that the defendant (2) committed fraud on or
about May 27th, 2013 when allegedly forging Counterclaim Plaintiffs signature on
the Admission Agreement being relied upon to collect the alleged debt to HBR
Danbury, LLC.

9. That HBR Danbury, LLC also committed fraud when telling Counterclaim Plaintiff
he would only be admitted for a couple days When in fact he was kept under
their care involuntarily for over 17 months.
10. The statement once forged was untrue and known to be untrue by the defendant.

11. The defendant made the statement with reckless disregard for the truth of the
matter.

12. The defendant made the statement to induce the Counterclaim Plaintiff to act on
it.

13. Counterclaim Plaintiff did act on the statement to his injury.

Count Three.
Negligent Misrepresentation

14. The Counterclaim Plaintiff claims that the defendant (2) made a negligent

misrepresentation that he would only be in the nursing home for two days.
15. Counterclaim Plaintiff was kept in the nursing home for approximately 17 months.
16. The defendant (2) supplied false information.
17. The defendant (2) failed to exercise reasonable care in obtaining or
communicating the information.
18. The defendant (2) supplied the information to induce the plaintiff to act on it.
19. The Counterclaim Plaintiff justifiably relied on the information to his injury.

Count Four.
Abuse of Process

20. That all named defendants used the civil and probate legal process against
Counterclaim Plaintiff to accomplish a purpose for which it is not designed.
21. That the defendants used a legal process against Counterclaim Plaintiff, in their
names or in the name of another person or entity
Count Five.
Conversion
22. Defendant (1) when serving as court appointed conservator of Counterclaim
Plaintiffs person and estate, without authorization, assumed and exercised
ownership or control over property belonging to Louis Russo and thereby
deprived him of the property for an indefinite period of time.
23. Defendant (1) wrongfully took possession of Counterclaim Plaintiffs property and
wrongfully exercised control over the property.
24. The property at issue belonged to Counterclaim Plaintiff.
25. Defendant (1) took possession of and exercised control over Mr. Russos
property, which deprived him of the property for an indefinite period of time.
26. Defendant (2)s conduct was unauthorized, wrongful, without the plaintiff's

permission, and without any other lawful authority.

27. Defendant (2)s conduct caused harm to the plaintiff.

Count Six.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

28. All named defendants, intended to inflict emotional distress.

29. Should have known that emotional distress was the likely result of their conduct.
30. The conduct was extreme and outrageous.
31. The conduct was the cause of emotional distress experienced by the
Counterclaim Plaintiff.
32. The emotional distress sustained by the Counterclaim Plaintiff was severe.
Count Seven.
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
33. All named defendants, engaged in conduct they should have realized involved an
unreasonable risk of causing emotional distress.
34. The distress has resulted in illness and bodily injury.
35. The conduct has caused emotional distress to the Counterclaim Plaintiff.
36. The distress was of such a nature as might result in illness or bodily harm.
Count Eight.
Assault

37. Counterclaim Plaintiff alleges that the defendant (2), committed assault.
38. Caused Counterclaim Plaintiff to be placed in imminent apprehension of a
harmful or offensive contact with persons leading up to, during and at the time of
his transfer to the Wallingford Masonacare.
39. The unlawful use of restraints resulted in imminent contact which could have only
5

have been avoided by self-defensive action or flight or the intervention of some

outside force.
40. A harmful contact caused physical impairment of the condition of Counterclaim
Plaintiff, and physical pain.
41. The offensive contact offended the reasonable sense of Counterclaim Plaintiffs
personal dignity.
42. The act was done intentionally, wantonly, and without the exercise of due care.

Count Nine.
Battery
43. Counterclaim Plaintiff alleges that defendant (2) committed Battery.
44. Counterclaim Plaintiff alleges that the conduct of the defendant constituted a
battery.
45. The conduct was harmful and offensive contact.
46. A harmful contact caused physical impairment, and physical pain.
47. The offensive contact offended the reasonable sense of personal dignity.
48. The contact was the direct and immediate consequence of a force exerted by the
defendant (2) intentionally, wantonly, or without the exercise of due care.

Count Ten.
False Imprisonment
49. Counterclaim Plaintiff alleges that the defendant (2), subjected him to false
imprisonment.

50. Used unlawful restraint to punish and transfer Counterclaim Plaintiff to the
Wallingford Masonacare without proper permission or authorization.
51. Confined Counterclaim Plaintiff within boundaries fixed by the person imposing

the confinement.
52. Had his physical liberty restrained.
53. The restraint was against his will.
54. Acted with the purpose of imposing a confinement
55. Acted with knowledge that such confinement would certainty result from their
action.
56. Counterclaim Plaintiff was conscious of the confinement when it occurred.
57. Counterclaim Plaintiff was harmed by the confinement.

Count Eleven.
Duty to Protect from Wrongful Conduct of Third Persons
58. The Counterclaim Plaintiff claims that Defendant (5) was negligent in failing to
provide adequate security to prevent a third person (Defendant (1) from
committing crimes on the premises that were likely to cause harm to
Counterclaim Plaintiff.
Count Twelve.
Negligence of Independent Contractor

59. The Counterclaim Plaintiff claims that the defendant (1), had a duty to the
Counterclaim Plaintiff to use reasonable care, and failed in that duty, causing
injury to the Counterclaim Plaintiff.
60. Defendant (1) did not use reasonable care under the circumstances,
61. Failure to use reasonable care was a proximate cause of the Counterclaim
Plaintiff s injuries.
62. Defendant (1) controlled the premises;
Count Thirteen.

Comparative Negligence

63. Counterclaim Plaintiff alleges that all named defendants negligence was a legal
cause of the plaintiff's injuries.

Count Fourteen.
Duty Foreseeability

64. Counterclaim Plaintiff alleges that all named defendants failed in their duty to use
care.
65. The defendants here either knew or should have known at the time of the
challenged conduct that harm occurred to the Counterclaim Plaintiff and was
likely to result from that conduct.
Count Fifteen.
Reasonable Care

66. Counterclaim Plaintiff alleges that all named defendants failed to use reasonable
care throughout the surrounding circumstances.
Count Sixteen.
Legal Malpractice

67. Counterclaim Plaintiff alleges that defendants (3),(4), & (6), were the
Counterclaim Plaintiff attorneys in the matter of the Counterclaim Plaintiffs

involuntary conservatorship.
68. That the named attorneys departed from the standard of professional care owed
to protect the Counterclaim Plaintiff 's legal interests in that matter.
69. That this departure was a legal cause of harm to the Counterclaim Plaintiff.
Count Seventeen.
Negligence Per Se - Statutory Negligence

70. Counterclaim Plaintiff alleges that all named defendants violated multiple CT
State Statutes.
71. Counterclaim Plaintiff alleges that the conduct of the named defendants violation
of the requirements of statutes constitutes negligence.
Count Eighteen.
Professional Malpractice
72. Counterclaim Plaintiff alleges that all named defendants were negligent.
73. The Counterclaim Plaintiff further alleges that as a direct and proximate result of
the acts and/or omissions of the defendants, the Counterclaim Plaintiff was
damaged.
74. That lack of skill was a legal cause of the Counterclaim Plaintiff 's alleged claim
of injuries.
75. The defendants were obligated to conform to the applicable standard of care.
76. The defendants departed from that standard.
77. The Counterclaim Plaintiff suffered injury.
78. The defendant's departure from the standard of care caused the plaintiff harm.

Count Nineteen.

Fiduciary Duty

79. Counterclaim Plaintiff alleges that all named defendants acted as his fiduciary for
the purpose of involuntary conservatorship established undet the laws of the CT
Probate Court
80. That the defendant breached the fiduciary duty created by that relationship.
81. Counterclaim Plaintiff has alleged that the defendants, acting as the plaintiff's
fiduciary, engaged in fraud, self-dealing and conflict of interest.
82. The defendants were obligated to treat the Counterclaim Plaintiff interests and
property, which were the subject of the parties' relationship, with the utmost
sensitivity, honesty, candor, scrupulous good faith, and undivided loyalty.
83. Counterclaim Plaintiff alleges that the defendants while acting as the fiduciary
were neither reasonable, nor fair, with regard to the Counterclaim Plaintiffs
principal.
84. The defendants gained financial advantage or benefit at the expense of the
Counterclaim Plaintiff,
85. The benefit or advantage was acquired in breach of the fiduciary duty owed to
the principal.
86. The benefit to the defendants was not the product of fair dealing, good faith, or
full disclosure.

Count Twenty.
Medical Malpractice

87. The Counterclaim Plaintiff, claims that he has been injured through the
negligence of the defendant (2)
88. That defendant (2), violated a legal duty which was owe to Counterclaim Plaintiff.

10

89. The legal duty that defendant (2) a health care provider, owed to Counterclaim
Plaintiff has been established by our legislature.
90. Counterclaim Plaintiff alleges that the defendant (2) failed to provide prevailing
professional standard of care for a given health care provider.
91. Counterclaim Plaintiff alleges that defendant (2)s conduct represented a breach
of the prevailing professional standard of care.
92. The treatment in question occurred between May 2013 November 2014.

NARRATIVE BRIEF

The Counterclaim Plaintiff (Louis J. Russo) was involuntarily conserved following

application for involuntary probate conservatorship by the Town of New Fairfield Social
Work department following a fall in his home.

The Counterclaim Plaintiff is a 97 year old World War II Combat Veteran. Prior to
his involuntary conservatorship and forced stay at Pope John Paul Nursing Home, he
was living at his home, independent of any assistance, free of any debts, and full owner
of his estate at (11 Hammond Rd), relied upon no medications, and was in good general
health given his age of 95. That was 2013.

Today, October 26th, 2015, and following 17 months under care at Pope John
Paul and under the protection of the CT Probate Court appointed conservators and
attorneys for two years, the Counterclaim Plaintiff has limited ambulatory ability, relies
on a wheel chair for mobility, an electric chair-lift to vacate premises, currently has a 24

11

hour live-in caretaker, no use of his right hand or arm, limited use of his left arm,
amputated toes on one foot (1965 VA surgery), cancer on his hand that was recently
removed (but never noticed while under the care of defendant (2)). A $108,000 alleged
debt to a nursing home, $39,000 alleged debt to defendant (4), $9,000 alleged debt to
defendant (3), a lien placed on his estate by defendant (2), no access to his social
security or veterans affairs pension income, denied access to his medical records, a
growing debt to the utility company, is not receiving the food he is requesting from
defendant (4), has not been paid by defendant (1) despite defendant (5)s order, and
relies on volunteers for transportation to and from his residence and for providing
assistance preparing written communications.

The counterclaim plaintiff, according to all received medical reports, is of sound

mind, suffers no mental illness, is in great health given his age according to all
received reports from doctors and nurses that see and have seen him. His heart is
healthy, lungs are healthy, vision is clear and his mental faculties are intact.

The counterclaim plaintiff was placed into nursing home care under HBR
Danbury, LLC despite his appeal and VA documentation that he be placed in a VA
facility at no charge. His wishes were ignored by defendant (1) in this matter, and he
was forced to maintain residence, involuntarily under the care of defendant (2) for a
period of nearly 17 months where the charges for housing and services surpassed
$108,000.00. At the time of his placement in defendant (2)s facility, he was informed
that it would be for no longer than a couple days

12

During his alleged and self described imprisonment at Pope John Paul II, The
counterclaim plaintiff claims that he was illegally transferred to the Wallingford
Masonacare where he claims to have been abused and his rights and dignity violated.

Also during his confinement defendant (1) emptied all of the counterclaim
plaintiffs bank accounts, took the money for himself, scrapped his personal belongings,
sold his heavy equipment and trucks, and deprived him of Probate Court mandated
counsel and services. (These allegations are confirmed in a May 15th, 2015 Probate
Court Judgment and order by Honorable Judge Martin Langrebe. Case# 13-00304)
and linked here https://www.scribd.com/doc/265855962/Judge-Orders-MarkBroadmeyer-to-Pay-Lou-Back-over-32-000

Additionally, defendant (1) & (6), illegally rented out the counterclaim plaintiffs
house while he was forced to incur charges for care under Defendant (2)s care. Upon
notification to the court by a neighbor, defendant (5) ordered defendant (1) to evict the
illegal tenants at the costs of defendant (1) and return the counterclaim plaintiffs to his
home. (Substantiated in May 15th 2015 order linked above)

October 15th, 2014 the counterclaim plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against
Defendants (1)&(6). This case remains under investigation with the CT State Police.
(Case# 14-00629985 linked here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/242943071/LouisJ-Russo-Criminal-Complaint-against-Candace-V-Fay-and-Mark-Broadmeyer)

13

November 2015, following assistance from veterans advocates and friends, the
counterclaim plaintiff was able to return to his home where he currently resides and
wishes to stay for the remaining duration of his life.

January 22nd, 2015 the counterclaim plaintiff filed a 10-page notice of grievances
with the Probate Court detailing his suffering and exploitation while conserved (Linked
Here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/253774677/Louis-J-Russo-Notice-ofGrievances-to-the-Probate-Court-and-Case-Background)

The counterclaim plaintiff has attempted to appeal to each of the defendants and
their legal counsel specific to his alleged debts for care under defendant (2) to withdraw
his name as defendant but has not been responded to.

Until October 20th, 2015, The counterclaim plaintiff has been unable to either file
an appearance, motions, pleadings, or request on his own behalf or conduct any kind of
discovery since he was placed under involuntary conservatorship.

While the counterclaim plaintiff feels he has a rather extensive counterclaim and
valid civil complaint against many involved in his exploitation, he prefers simply to be left
alone, freed from this nightmare and withdrawn from defendant (2)s lawsuit aginst him.
But should they continue to seek to exploit him and his estate he is now prepared,

14

under the provisions of the newly established CT Public Act 15-236 Section 3(1)&(3) to
initiate a civil complaint as set forth below and for the following counts.
BACKGROUND
1. May 27th, 2013 Counterclaim Plaintiff was placed, against his will, into nursing
home care at Pope John Paul II Nursing Home (aka, Genesis Healthcare, HBR
Danbury, LLC).
2. June 23rd, 2013 - Present The Counterclaim Plaintiff was involuntarily conserved
by the Housatonic Valley Probate Court and alleges that he did not receive
adequate legal representation or services.
3. April 23rd, 2014 Defendant (2) filed a civil summons and complaint to place a lien
on the property of the Counterclaim Plaintiff for debts in excess of $70,000.
Linked here: http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?
DocketNo=DBDCV145009231S
4. August 1st, 2014, Defendant (1) & (6) illegally rented out the Counterclaim
Plaintiffs estate, without probate court approval or approval of the Counterclaim
Plaintiff and was ordered by defendant (5) to have the illegal tenants removed at
defendant (1)s costs.
5. October 1st, 2014, Defendant (1) resigns.
6. October 3rd, 2014, counterclaim plaintiff meets his new advocate, Dan Gaita and
provides video recorded intake testimony here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=iLTNrcN-2A8
7. October 15th, 2014, Defendant (6) is removed and directed to stay away from the
Counterclaim Plaintiff in a letter from the newly appointed conservator and

15

defendant (4). Linked here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/243218174/Removal-ofCandace-V-Fay-as-Court-Appointed-Attorney

8. January 28th, 2015 Counterclaim plaintiff filed a Notice of Grievances with the CT
Statewide Grievance Committee linked here:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/255566604/Louis-Russo-Statewide-GreivanceComplaint-Against-Candace-Fay against defendant (6). Counterclaim plaintiffs
complaint disappeared and was never brought before the committee. The
committee claims to have returned the complaint but it has never surfaced.
9. January 29th 2014, counterclaim plaintiff provides direct testimony of grievances
at Probate Court hearing. Linked here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=7wwoWcglY_0
10. The Counterclaim Plaintiff continues to allege he has not received adequate legal
counsel on this matter by his assigned conservators or attorneys while under
involuntary conservation.
11. All of the Counterclaim Plaintiffs Probate Court appointed conservators of his
person and estate were either removed, resigned, or are deceased.
12. The Counterclaim Plaintiff never agreed to being placed in Nursing Home Care
for cost at Pope John Paul II (HBR Danbury, LLC).
13. The Counterclaim Plaintiff is a 97-year-old World War II combat veteran that has
always been eligible for free healthcare at any United States Veterans Affairs
Nursing Home or Medical Center and should never have been placed in a facility
at a cost to he or his estate.

16

14. The Counterclaim Plaintiff, has alleged in a criminal complaint here:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/286105510/Louis-Russo-Signed-Criminal-Complaintfor-Forgery-Against-Pope-John-Paul-II-Nursing-Home-HBR-Danbury-LLC which
was refused by the Danbury Police that his alleged signature on the Admission
Agreement with Pope John Paul II (HBR Danbury, LLC) was forged. He was
informed that since it is a matter under civil litigation he could not file the criminal
complaint
15. Furthermore that the alleged signed admission agreement did not provide any
signature for agreeing to pay any associated fees, and did not contain identifying
information on the employee that completed the document (Name, Title missing
and signature is illegible)
16. May 15th, 2015, The Probate Court issued a judgment for remedy in favor of
Counterclaim Plaintiff which articulates the mismanagement of his person and his
estate by the first court appointed conservator and defendant (1) in this action,
Mark Broadmeyer.
17. Defendant (1), Mark Broadmeyer, was the assigned conservator who kept the
Counterclaim Plaintiff, against his will, under the care of defendant (2) in the
nursing home without assisting him with relocation to a free Veterans Affairs
facility or bringing him back home.
18. The First Probate Court Appointed attorney (defendant 6) of his person and
estate, Candace Fay, never properly informed the Counterclaim Plaintiff of his
debt, failed to provide sufficient legal counsel and entered into an earlier Pre

17

Judgment Remedy applied for on April 23rd, 2014 without first ascertaining the
opinions, wishes or interest of the Counterclaim Plaintiff.
19. The second court appointed conservator; Attorney Dean Lewis (defendant 4) is
deceased and refused to work with the counterclaim plaintiffs advocate.
20. The second court appointed attorney Richard Terbrusch (defendant 3) has tried
to resign on two separate occasions and has refused to work with the
counterclaim plaintiffs advocate.
21. The Third court appointed conservator; Justin Lewis (son of dean lewis,
defendant 4) is not qualified to practice law in this matter and has refused to work
with the counterclaim plaintiffs advocate.
22. October 20-22nd 2015, Following the passage of CT Public Act 15-236 AN ACT
PROTECTING ELDERLY CONSUMERS FROM EXPLOITATION, Counterclaim
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking to be removed from the
lawsuit against him by Defendant (2). Linked here:
http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?
DocumentNo=9583883
23. October 23rd, 2015, Defendant (2) filed a motion for extension of time to answer
the counterclaim plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment. This motion was filed
in advance of the scheduled Oct 27th, 2015 Pretrial Conference for docket #
DBD-CV14-5009231 HBR Danbury LLC v. Russo, Louis Et Al. linked here:
http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?
DocketNo=DBDCV145009231S
24. This matter remains unresolved.

18

WHEREFORE, counterclaim plaintiff demands judgment against defendants,

and each of them, for:
1. Compensatory damages according to proof;
2. Punitive damages;
3. Interest as allowed by law;
4. Costs of suit; and
5. Such other and further relief as this court may deem
just and proper.

19