Elderly Abuse Cases Rising In Ohio Nursing Homes

A recent news segment and accompanying investigative reporting have brought renewed attention to serious concerns about care quality at facilities operated by the Arbors of Ohio nursing home chain. The reporting highlights a pattern of regulatory violations, civil lawsuits, and, in some cases, findings that facility failures contributed to resident harm or death.

The Core Allegations

According to an investigation by Signal Ohio published in June 2026, the Arbors of Ohio chain has faced significant legal and regulatory pressure:

• Since January 1, 2024, at least 11 plaintiffs have filed lawsuits accusing Arbors facilities of negligence or medical errors that allegedly contributed to patients’ deaths.
• Federal and state inspectors have linked care failures at certain Arbors facilities to the deaths of residents.
• Over a recent three-year period, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued fines to Arbors facilities on 18 occasions, totaling more than $648,000.

The news segment discussing these findings also referenced broader data from the Ohio Attorney General’s office showing a substantial rise in reported elder-abuse cases, underscoring that problems in long-term care are not limited to a single chain.

Sharpening the Case for Aging-in-Place Planning

Stories like this reinforce several practical realities for older adults and their families:

• Regulatory fines and private lawsuits, while important, do not always prevent continued operation of facilities with repeated problems;
• Families cannot rely solely on a facility’s continued licensure as evidence of consistent high-quality care; and
• The best protection remains proactive planning that prioritizes home- and community-based options whenever feasible, thorough vetting of any institutional placement, and ongoing monitoring of care.

When institutional care becomes necessary, consider our article, "Choosing a Nursing Home or Skilled Nursing Facility: Navigating the Long-Term Care Crisis."  Families should always review recent inspection reports, staffing data, fine history, and complaint records before making a decision and should continue to monitor care after placement.

Proactive Planning

The reports concerning Arbors of Ohio facilities illustrate the ongoing risks that can arise in institutional long-term care settings. They also highlight the value of aging-in-place strategies, careful selection of any facility, and vigilance by family members. Public data from CMS, state health departments, and independent investigations remain essential tools for families trying to make informed decisions.  Families concerned about a loved one’s care should document issues, report them to the appropriate state agencies, and consult an elder law attorney when necessary to protect the resident’s rights and safety.

When an Estate Inherits an IRA: New IRS Guidance Allows Tax-Free Division into Separate Inherited IRAs

One of the most common and costly retirement-account mistakes is failing to identify beneficiaries on an IRA. When no beneficiary is designated (or the designation fails), the account passes to the decedent’s estate by default. That outcome usually produces worse required minimum distribution (RMD) rules and can create administrative headaches for the executor and the heirs. In PLR 202624001 (released February 20, 2026), the IRS confirmed a practical and taxpayer-friendly solution: an estate that inherits an IRA can divide the account into separate inherited IRAs for the individual beneficiaries named in the will, using trustee-to-trustee transfers, without triggering a taxable distribution.

The Facts of the RulingThe decedent owned a traditional IRA and died after reaching the age at which RMDs were required. No beneficiary designation was on file, so the estate became the sole beneficiary of the IRA. The decedent’s will left the residuary estate (including the IRA) equally to three children. 

The executor proposed to divide the IRA into three equal shares, and move each share by direct trustee-to-trustee transfer into a separate inherited IRA titled in the decedent’s name for the benefit of each child (as a beneficiary of the estate).  We'll discuss "why" the executor suggested this plan after reporting the ruling of the IRS.

What the IRS Ruled

The Service granted four favorable rulings.  The IRS ruled that:

• each beneficiary’s interest in the estate’s IRA may be segregated into separate IRAs for RMD purposes;

• the new accounts, properly titled and funded by trustee-to-trustee transfer, qualify as inherited IRAs under IRC § 408(d)(3);

• each beneficiary may take RMDs from his or her separate inherited IRA over the decedent’s remaining life expectancy (using the Single Life Table); and

• The trustee-to-trustee transfers themselves are not taxable distributions under § 408(d)(1) and are not treated as rollovers under § 408(d)(3).

In short, splitting the estate-owned IRA into separate inherited IRAs for the will beneficiaries does not create immediate income tax.

The Executor's Objectives

The main goals were administrative clarity, separate control, and cleaner tax reporting, while staying within the limited options available once the estate is the beneficiary.  Key benefits of the approved approach:

• Separate accounts for each beneficiary:  Each child receives their own inherited IRA. They can manage investments, take distributions, and deal with the custodian independently instead of everything flowing through the estate.
• Independent RMD tracking
  Each beneficiary satisfies the required minimum distribution rules from their own account. This avoids the need for the executor to calculate and distribute one combined RMD and then allocate it among the heirs.
• Avoids (or minimizes) estate-level income taxation
  When the IRA stays in the estate’s name, distributions are generally reported to the estate under its EIN. The estate may have to pay tax at compressed fiduciary rates if it retains the funds, or it must distribute the money out so the beneficiaries pick up the income. Splitting into separate inherited IRAs lets the income flow more directly to the individual beneficiaries.
• Non-taxable movement of the assets
  The IRS confirmed that the trustee-to-trustee transfers themselves are not taxable distributions and are not treated as rollovers. The tax is deferred until actual distributions are taken from the new inherited IRAs.
• Practical administration
  Once the separate inherited IRAs are established, the estate can close out its involvement with the retirement account more cleanly.

Note that the beneficiaries still had to use the decedent’s remaining life expectancy for RMDs. Because the estate (not the individuals) was the designated beneficiary, they could not use their own longer life expectancies or the more favorable 10-year rule that usually applies to designated individual beneficiaries.What If the Proposal Had Been Denied?

If the IRS had refused to allow the division into separate inherited IRAs, the practical and tax consequences would have been less favorable:

• The entire IRA would have remained titled in the name of the estate.
• All post-death distributions would be reported on Form 1099-R issued to the estate.
• The estate would include those amounts in its gross income (Form 1041).
  • If the estate retained the funds, it would pay tax at the compressed fiduciary income-tax rates (which reach the highest bracket very quickly).
  • If the estate distributed the money to the beneficiaries in the same year, the income could be passed out via Schedule K-1, but the timing and character still flow through the estate’s return first.
• The executor would have to continue administering the IRA as an estate asset, calculating the single RMD based on the decedent’s remaining life expectancy, and then allocating shares among the three children.
• Beneficiaries would have less direct control and more dependence on the estate administration process.
• There could be delays, extra accounting costs, and potential mismatches between when the estate receives the distribution and when the beneficiaries actually receive their shares.
• Alternately, the executor could have distributed the funds from the IRA, incurring immediate taxable consequences to either the estate or to the individual beneficiaries on the entire amount distributed, sacrificing any favorable tax deferral.

In short, the ruling gave the executor a clean, tax-free way to move from one estate-owned IRA to three separate inherited IRAs. That structure is administratively superior and generally more tax-efficient for the beneficiaries than leaving the account stuck inside the estate. It does not, however, improve the underlying RMD period; that limitation is locked in once the estate is the beneficiary. This is why proper beneficiary designations (or a qualifying look-through trust) remain far preferable to relying on this post-death rescue technique.

Why This Matters and Why It Is Still Second-BestThis guidance is helpful for executors who discover that an IRA has no designated beneficiary. It allows the estate to move the assets into individual inherited IRAs so each heir can manage his or her own share and satisfy RMDs independently.  The ruling, however, also underscores a critical limitation: because the estate was the beneficiary, the heirs are stuck with the decedent’s remaining life expectancy. They cannot use their own longer life expectancies, nor (in most post-SECURE Act cases) the more flexible 10-year rule that often applies to designated individual beneficiaries or qualifying look-through trusts. The result is typically faster forced distributions and higher income taxes over a shorter period.Planning Implications for Aging-in-Place and Elder Law ClientsThe following remain actionable and preferred planning tools:

• Name a Beneficiary:  A properly drafted see-through trust, but if not, an individual primary and contingent beneficiary or beneficiaries. The cleanest solution is still a direct beneficiary designation. This PLR is a rescue technique, not a preferred plan.

• Review Beneficiary Forms Regularly:  Marriage, divorce, births, deaths, and changes in relationships all require updates. Custodians’ default rules (often the estate) should never be left in place by accident.

• Coordinate the Will and Beneficiary Designations: Even when the will names the same people, the absence of a designation on the IRA form forces the slower, less favorable estate-as-beneficiary path.

• Executors should act promptly: Establishing the separate inherited IRAs and confirming the RMD method early reduces the risk of missed distributions or custodian resistance. Some custodians still prefer or require a PLR before allowing the split; this published ruling may ease that process.

• Consider the Income-tax Impact on the Heirs. Faster RMDs based on the decedent’s life expectancy can push beneficiaries into higher tax brackets, another reason to avoid estate-as-beneficiary status whenever possible.

Bottom Line

PLR 202624001 gives executors a clear, tax-free path to divide an estate-owned IRA into separate inherited IRAs for the individual heirs. That is welcome administrative relief. It does not, however, cure the underlying problem of a missing or failed beneficiary designation. The best protection remains proactive: keep beneficiary designations current, coordinate them with the overall estate plan, and avoid letting retirement accounts fall into the estate by default.

Clients who hold IRAs or other retirement accounts should review their beneficiary designations as part of any comprehensive aging-in-place or estate-planning update. A few minutes spent confirming those forms can save heirs both taxes and complications later.

Private Letter Ruling (PLR) 202624001 (released June 12, 2026).  

Trustee Personally Liable for Rent-Free Occupancy and Trust-Funded Renovations

A recent decision from the New Hampshire Supreme Court delivers a clear and costly reminder to trustees: living rent-free in trust-owned property and using trust funds for personal renovations constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty, and the trustee can be charged personally for both the improvements and the fair rental value.

The Facts

After their mother died, three siblings, Nathaniel Moffat, Sarah Srebro, and Matthew Moffat, became equal beneficiaries of the Pamela Dawson Moffat Revocable Trust. The Trust was the residuary beneficiary of their mother’s Maryland-probated estate and required equal distribution among the three children.  The Trust was apprently not funded with either of the properties, thereby necessitating probate.  The trust held two neighboring properties in Hancock, New Hampshire; the first being a longtime family summer home, and the second being a nearby house purchased in 2020 with the mother’s funds.

Nathaniel served as trustee. He moved into the nearby house, paid for substantial renovations with trust assets, and occupied the home rent-free for an extended period. When the siblings could not agree on how to divide the real estate, Nathaniel petitioned the probate court for partition. Sarah responded with counterclaims alleging multiple breaches of fiduciary duty.

The Probate Court conducted a four-day trial, the probate court exercised its equitable partition powers to award the summer home to , award the nearby house to Nathaniel, but charged Nathaniel with the value of the trust-funded renovations and the fair rental value of his rent-free occupancy, finding that he had breached his fiduciary duties by prioritizing his personal interests over those of the other beneficiaries, and further, ordered him to reimburse the trust for the attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the litigation.  The case was appealed. 

On July 7, 2026, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the probate court's ruling in full. The Court held that, the probate court acted within its broad equitable discretion in partitioning the properties, the court's findings of breach of fiduciary duty were supported by the record, specifically, the trustee’s decision to occupy trust property rent-free and to use trust funds for renovations that primarily benefited him, and that the probate court had proper subject-matter jurisdiction over the fiduciary-duty counterclaims, even though the trust contained a District of Columbia choice-of-law clause.  On a procedural basis, the Supreme Court found that certain challenges to the remedy (including fee awards) had been waived or not properly preserved for appeal.Why This Matters for Families and Trustees

Trustees often believe that because they are also beneficiaries, they can treat trust real estate more casually, especially a family home. This case firmly rejects that notion. A trustee who occupies trust property without paying rent or who spends trust money on improvements that primarily benefit himself can be surcharged for both the rental value and the cost of the renovations. The decision reinforces several core principles of trust administration that are especially relevant in aging-in-place and family-wealth planning:

• A trustee must act solely in the best interests of all beneficiaries.
• Self-dealing with trust real estate (even when the trustee is also a beneficiary) requires careful documentation, consent, or court approval.
• Probate courts have wide equitable authority to fashion practical remedies when siblings cannot agree on the division of trust property.
• Personal use of trust assets without proper accounting creates lasting financial and family consequences.

Conclusion

Parents who place a family home or vacation property into a revocable trust (or who fund a trust that later purchases real estate) should consider clear instructions about occupancy, rent, and improvements. Beneficiaries who serve as trustees must understand that the role carries strict fiduciary obligations, even toward siblings.  When family real estate is involved, proactive planning and transparent communication remain far less expensive than years of litigation and personal liability.

If you are serving as trustee of a trust that owns real property, or if your family is struggling with the division of trust-owned homes, consult experienced counsel before decisions about occupancy or renovations are made. As this case demonstrates, the cost of getting it wrong can be substantial.

Case: Moffat v. Srebro, 2026 N.H. 25 (July 7, 2026)

A Written Right of Sepulcher Belongs in Every Comprehensive Estate Plan: Radford v. Croley Funeral Home

A recent Texas case illustrates a recurring and painful problem: when someone dies without clear written instructions about their remains, disputes among family members (or between family and a non-family partner) can create havoc, leave grieving relatives feeling betrayed, and, in this case leave funeral homes in an impossible position.

A Dispute Over Cremation

In Radford v. Stansbury (Texas Court of Appeals, Texarkana District), Lonzell Radford died while living with his girlfriend, Ardie Govan. Govan arranged for the funeral home to take custody of the body and signed a cremation authorization form identifying herself as “FRIEND/EXECUTOR.” She certified that she had the legal right to authorize cremation. The funeral home proceeded with cremation.

Months later, Radford’s adult sons learned of the cremation and sued the funeral home for wrongful cremation. The trial court granted summary judgment for the funeral home.  The sons appealed, but the the court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment. 

Under Texas law, a funeral establishment is not liable when it carries out the written directions of a person who represents that they are entitled to control disposition of the remains. The funeral home had no duty to investigate whether Govan actually outranked the sons on the statutory priority list. The court held that the statutory immunity arises from the signer’s representation of authority on the cremation authorization form; the statute imposes no duty on the funeral home to investigate or verify whether that person actually held priority under the next-of-kin hierarchy.  The result: the girlfriend’s directions controlled, the sons were left without recourse against the funeral home, and a family conflict that could have been avoided became permanent.

Why This Matters for Ohio and Missouri Clients

Both Ohio and Missouri have statutes that establish a clear priority list for who controls the disposition of a deceased person’s remains when no written appointment exists. Those default lists generally favor a surviving spouse, then children, then parents, and so on. A non-family partner (even a long-term girlfriend or boyfriend) usually ranks low or not at all.

The Texas case shows what happens when the person who is actually present and assertive at the time of death is not the person the statute prioritizes. Funeral homes, facing practical time pressure and statutory immunity for relying on signed authorizations, will often follow the directions of whoever steps forward with apparent authority.

The Simple Solution: A Written Appointment

Both states allow an individual to override the default priority list by executing a written document appointing someone to control disposition. In Ohio the relevant statute is O.R.C. § 2108.70 et seq. The official form has the lengthy (and somewhat awkward) title: “Appointment of Representative for Disposition of Bodily Remains, Funeral Arrangements, and Burial or Cremation Goods and Services.” Despite the cumbersome name, the document is powerful. A properly executed appointment gives the named representative priority over everyone on the statutory list, including a spouse or adult children.

In Missouri, the statute calls it the “right of sepulcher” (R.S.Mo. § 194.119). The statute also expressly places an agent named in a durable power of attorney (who has been specifically granted the right of sepulcher) at the top of the priority list, ahead of a even surviving spouse.

Practical Takeaway

A comprehensive estate plan should include more than a will, trust, and powers of attorney. It should also include a clear, properly executed appointment of an agent for the disposition of remains. This single document:

• Prevents the type of conflicts illustrated in the Texas case;
• Gives the client, not the default statute or the most assertive relative,the final say;
• Reduces the chance of litigation; and
• Provides clarity and peace of mind for the people left behind.

The document is inexpensive, easy to execute, and disproportionately valuable. Clients who have strong feelings about cremation versus burial, religious observances, or who should (or should not) be in charge should not leave the decision to a statutory default list or to whoever happens to be present and assertive when the funeral home needs a signature. Put it in writing.

Premature QTIP Trust Termination Triggers Massive Tax Consequences

A recent U.S. Tax Court decision serves as a stark warning for families who attempt to “unwrap” or terminate a Qualified Terminable Interest Property (QTIP) trust early. In Linda M. Lewis v. Commissioner and Peter F. McDougall v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2026-58 (July 20, 2026), the Court held that two adult children each made taxable gifts of $35,141,321 when they agreed to terminate their late mother’s QTIP trust and distribute all of its assets to their father.

The Facts

Clotilde McDougall died in 2011. A substantial portion of her estate (primarily real estate) funded a QTIP marital trust for her surviving husband, Bruce. Under the trust:

• Bruce received all income for life (and discretionary principal for health, maintenance, and support).
• He held a limited testamentary power of appointment.
• Their two children, Linda and Peter, held the remainder interests.

In 2016, the family entered into a nonjudicial agreement to terminate the trust early. The entire $117.6 million corpus was distributed outright to Bruce. The parties reported the transaction as offsetting reciprocal gifts that produced no net gift tax liability. The Tax Court had previously ruled (in 2024) that Bruce made no taxable gift, but that the children did make taxable gifts by relinquishing their remainder interests. The July 20, 2026 opinion resolved the critical question of valuation.

Key Holdings

The Tax Court reached several important conclusions:

1. The father’s limited power of appointment did not reduce the value of the children’s gifts. The Court looked to state law and the decedent’s intent as expressed in her will. Because the mother never intended her husband to receive everything outright, the children would have been entitled to their remainder shares upon any early termination.
2. State law, not the IRC § 7520 actuarial tables, governs the valuation. The Court held that the proper measure of the gift is what the children would have received under state law if the trust had terminated without the special agreement that gave everything to their father.
3. The gifts must be reduced under the “net gift” principle for the avoided § 2207A reimbursement obligation. Had the children received their remainder interests, a deemed gift under § 2519 would have occurred, and they would have been obligated to reimburse their father for the resulting gift tax. By forgoing that distribution, they avoided the reimbursement liability, which reduced the value of their gifts.
4. After applying these principles and accepting an IRS concession, the Court fixed the value of each child’s gift at $35,141,321.

Impact on Aging-in-Place and Elder Law Planning

QTIP trusts remain one of the most common tools for married couples, especially in second marriages or when a spouse wants to preserve assets for children while still securing the unlimited marital deduction. Families sometimes later decide that the trust is no longer needed or that it creates administrative burdens, and they seek to terminate it early by agreement. This case illustrates the hidden tax traps:

• Remainder beneficiaries (usually the children) can trigger large taxable gifts simply by consenting to an early termination that benefits the surviving spouse.
• Informal family agreements that seem “fair” or “efficient” can produce multi-million-dollar gift tax bills.
• Valuation is not as straightforward as applying the IRS actuarial tables; state law and the original estate planning documents control.

As a result, there are some practical lessons that arise from this case:

• Do not terminate or commute a QTIP trust without a thorough gift-tax analysis.
• Understand the interaction of §§ 2519 and 2207A before any modification.
• When a QTIP is part of the plan, consider building in clearer termination provisions or alternative structures from the outset.
• Families who value flexibility and control should carefully weigh whether a QTIP is the right vehicle, or whether other approaches (including well-designed revocable trusts combined with lifetime gifting or aging-in-place strategies) better serve their long-term goals.

We repeatedly emphasize that the best outcomes come from thoughtful planning before a crisis or a desire for simplification arises. Premature changes to sophisticated trusts, especially QTIP trusts, or Medicaid Asset Protection Trusts (MAPTs) can create exactly the kind of expensive, stressful, and family-straining consequences this case illustrates.

If your estate plan includes a QTIP trust, or if family members are discussing early termination of an existing one, consult experienced counsel before signing any agreement. The cost of proper advice is almost always far lower than the cost of an unexpected $35 million gift tax assessment.

Unauthorized Practice of Law: How Trustees Can Accidentally Cross the Line — and the Serious Consequences That Follow

In our previous article we examined a Texas Court of Appeals decision that dismissed a trust’s appeal because its non-lawyer trustee tried to represent the trust pro se. That case is only one illustration of a much broader and often misunderstood legal concept: the unauthorized practice of law (UPL).Trustees, executors, administrators, personal representatives, and family members who step into fiduciary roles frequently stumble into UPL without realizing it. Understanding the boundaries, and the risks, is essential for anyone managing a revocable living trust, especially when the trust owns real estate or other assets that may require court action.

What Is the Unauthorized Practice of Law?

The unauthorized practice of law occurs when a person who is not licensed to practice law in a given jurisdiction performs acts that constitute the practice of law. While the precise definition varies slightly by state, the core idea is consistent: only licensed attorneys may represent the legal rights of another person or entity. An individual may appear pro se (for himself or herself), but may not appear on behalf of anyone else, including a trust, an estate, a limited liability company, or another individual.  Typical acts that courts treat as the practice of law include:

• Preparing and filing pleadings, motions, or notices of appeal
• Appearing in court or at administrative hearings on behalf of another
• Giving legal advice to third parties
• Negotiating settlements or legal rights for another person or entity

When a trustee files documents or appears in court “as Trustee of the XYZ Trust,” the trustee is acting in a representative capacity and is therefore practicing law on behalf of the trust.

Civil and Criminal Consequences of UPL

UPL is taken seriously by courts and bar authorities. Consequences can include:

Civil Consequences Include:

• Dismissal of the lawsuit, appeal, or motion (as seen in the Texas case);
• Striking of pleadings filed by the non-lawyer;
• Court-ordered sanctions, attorney’s fees, or costs assessed against the trustee personally;
• Possible personal liability for any damages caused by the unauthorized representation; and or,
• In some jurisdictions, the court may refer the matter to the state bar’s unauthorized-practice committee for sanction.

Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Consequences Include: 

• In many states, UPL is a criminal offense (often a misdemeanor; in some places a felony for repeat or egregious violations);
• Fines and, in rare cases, possible jail time;
• Injunctions prohibiting the individual from further unauthorized practice; and or,
• Contempt of court findings

Even when criminal prosecution is unlikely, the practical damage, lost cases, wasted time, and personal expense. can be severe.

Common Ways Trustees Blunder into UPLHere are real-world situations in which well-intentioned trustees  cross the line:

• Filing a Pro Se Eviction: 
  The trust owns a rental property. The tenant stops paying rent. The trustee, acting as landlord, prepares and files the eviction complaint in the trustee’s own name “as Trustee.” This is classic UPL.

• Appearing as Defendant in a Collection or Foreclosure Case: A creditor sues the trust. The trustee files an answer or appears at the hearing without a lawyer, believing “I’m just defending the trust.” Courts routinely reject this.

• Filing a small-claims action:  
  Someone owes the trust money, or the trustee seeks to recover property belonging to the deceased grantor. Filing the claim “as Trustee” in small-claims court is still UPL in most jurisdictions.

• Responding to a probate or trust contest:  
  A beneficiary challenges the trust. The trustee files pleadings or appears at hearings without counsel.

• Handling code-enforcement or zoning matters:  
  Local government issues notices against trust-owned property. The trustee responds in writing or appears at the hearing on behalf of the trust.

Special Warning for Rental Property Owners

One of the most frequent (and costly) mistakes involves rental real estate that has been conveyed into a revocable living trust.  Once title is held by the trust, the individual owner can no longer conduct evictions pro se. The landlord is now the trust, and only a licensed attorney may represent the trust in court. This is a genuine disadvantage for some property owners who previously handled their own simple evictions. Yet in today’s increasingly complex legal climate, with heightened tenant protections, procedural traps, and potential counterclaims for wrongful eviction, professional representation is generally advisable even when it is not strictly required. A lawyer is far better equipped to navigate the process correctly and protect the trust (and the trustee) from liability.

Practical Recommendations

• Assume that any court filing or appearance on behalf of the trust requires a licensed attorney.
• Budget for legal fees when the trust owns assets that may generate disputes (rental property, closely held businesses, etc.).
• Include clear language in the trust authorizing the trustee to hire counsel and pay reasonable attorney’s fees from trust assets.
• When in doubt, consult a lawyer before filing anything. A short consultation is far cheaper than a dismissed case or a UPL complaint.

Serving as a trustee is a serious fiduciary responsibility. Part of that responsibility is recognizing the limits of what a non-lawyer can do. Protecting the trust, and protecting yourself, means staying on the right side of the UPL rules.