For families planning to safeguard assets through Medicaid planning, a cornerstone strategy is the use of an irrevocable trust to shield resources from the five-year lookback period, ensuring eligibility for long-term care without depleting savings. Yet, a recent New Jersey case, Bartley Healthcare, Inc. v. Ott (No. A-3336-23, N.J. Super. App. Div. Aug. 15, 2025), highlights a troubling trend: nursing homes seeking to enforce filial responsibility (FR) obligations, despite federal law and most states’ reluctance to impose such duties for long-term care costs. This approach threatens to undo careful Medicaid plans, particularly in states like Ohio with nominal FR statutes, and underscores the need for vigilance in elder law.
The Case: A Nursing Home’s Bold MoveRobert Ott resided at Bartley Healthcare, Inc., until his 2022 death. His daughter, Laura Curcione, acting under a power of attorney (POA), signed letters of responsibility during his admission and readmission, agreeing to manage his funds and pursue Medicaid approval for his care costs. She also signed an agreement to pay a balance due. After Robert’s Medicaid application faced a penalty from unappealed nonqualified transfers, allegedly due to Laura’s inaction, Bartley sued her for $19,669.74, claiming she breached her duty to secure full Medicaid coverage.
The trial court dismissed Bartley’s claim, ruling Laura’s POA ended at Robert’s death, leaving no estate liability, and citing New Jersey’s law (N.J. Stat. Ann. § 30:13-3.1(a)(2)) that bars nursing homes from enforcing payment guarantees against family members. Bartley appealed, arguing Laura’s contractual breach, not FR, triggered her liability. The New Jersey Superior Court reversed and remanded, faulting the trial court for lacking specific factual findings under N.J. Ct. R. 1:7-4. The appellate court didn’t uphold or dismiss based on state/federal law but sent it back for clarity on Laura’s contractual obligations versus statutory protections.Filial Responsibility: A Clash with Federal Law and State TrendsFederal law (42 CFR § 483.12) prohibits nursing homes from conditioning admission or continued care on a family member’s financial guarantee, aiming to protect vulnerable seniors and their families from undue burden. Most states, including New Jersey, align with this, refusing to enforce FR for long-term care or Medicaid-related debts—except a handful like Pennsylvania, where FR laws have been controversially applied (e.g., Health Care & Retirement Corp. v. Pittas, 2012, holding a son liable for $93,000). Ohio, technically an FR state under Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.21, relegates it to a criminal statute, applicable only when someone voluntarily assumes care duties (e.g., co-signing a lease), not as a default for nursing home costs or Medicaid recovery. Missouri similarly limits FR to criminal neglect, not civil liability for care debts.
Yet, Bartley shows nursing homes sidestepping this by framing FR as a contractual issue (e.g., Laura’s letters of responsibility). This tactic threatens families who’ve transferred assets to irrevocable trusts, common in Medicaid planning to meet the five-year lookback (42 U.S.C. § 1396p(c)), rendering those assets unavailable for Medicaid eligibility or estate recovery. If successful, Bartley could force Laura to repay from personal funds, unraveling her father’s plan and exposing her own assets.Undoing Medicaid Planning: The Practical ThreatMedicaid planning often involves placing assets (e.g., a home, savings) into an irrevocable trust five years before care needs arise, shielding them from the lookback and ensuring funds for aging in place (e.g., home modifications, caregivers at $4,000–$6,000/month). Nursing homes, facing funding gaps (e.g., Ohio’s $527M Medicaid shortfall in 2024–2025), may target family members to offset unpaid bills, especially when Medicaid penalties arise from unappealed transfers.
The trial court dismissed Bartley’s claim, ruling Laura’s POA ended at Robert’s death, leaving no estate liability, and citing New Jersey’s law (N.J. Stat. Ann. § 30:13-3.1(a)(2)) that bars nursing homes from enforcing payment guarantees against family members. Bartley appealed, arguing Laura’s contractual breach, not FR, triggered her liability. The New Jersey Superior Court reversed and remanded, faulting the trial court for lacking specific factual findings under N.J. Ct. R. 1:7-4. The appellate court didn’t uphold or dismiss based on state/federal law but sent it back for clarity on Laura’s contractual obligations versus statutory protections.Filial Responsibility: A Clash with Federal Law and State TrendsFederal law (42 CFR § 483.12) prohibits nursing homes from conditioning admission or continued care on a family member’s financial guarantee, aiming to protect vulnerable seniors and their families from undue burden. Most states, including New Jersey, align with this, refusing to enforce FR for long-term care or Medicaid-related debts—except a handful like Pennsylvania, where FR laws have been controversially applied (e.g., Health Care & Retirement Corp. v. Pittas, 2012, holding a son liable for $93,000). Ohio, technically an FR state under Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.21, relegates it to a criminal statute, applicable only when someone voluntarily assumes care duties (e.g., co-signing a lease), not as a default for nursing home costs or Medicaid recovery. Missouri similarly limits FR to criminal neglect, not civil liability for care debts.
Yet, Bartley shows nursing homes sidestepping this by framing FR as a contractual issue (e.g., Laura’s letters of responsibility). This tactic threatens families who’ve transferred assets to irrevocable trusts, common in Medicaid planning to meet the five-year lookback (42 U.S.C. § 1396p(c)), rendering those assets unavailable for Medicaid eligibility or estate recovery. If successful, Bartley could force Laura to repay from personal funds, unraveling her father’s plan and exposing her own assets.Undoing Medicaid Planning: The Practical ThreatMedicaid planning often involves placing assets (e.g., a home, savings) into an irrevocable trust five years before care needs arise, shielding them from the lookback and ensuring funds for aging in place (e.g., home modifications, caregivers at $4,000–$6,000/month). Nursing homes, facing funding gaps (e.g., Ohio’s $527M Medicaid shortfall in 2024–2025), may target family members to offset unpaid bills, especially when Medicaid penalties arise from unappealed transfers.
- How It Undoes Planning: If Laura loses, her personal assets could cover Robert’s debt, bypassing the trust’s protection. This sets a precedent for nursing homes to pressure POA holders into guaranteeing care, risking families’ financial security.
- Legal Loophole: The remand suggests the court isn’t rubber-stamping lower rulings but also didn’t rule on federal/state law (e.g., 42 CFR § 483.12 or N.J. Stat. Ann. § 30:13-3.1). Bartley’s contract argument, unaddressed here, could exploit gaps if facts favor their narrative.
- Ohio: Though FR is criminal (not civil), nursing homes might mimic Bartley’s strategy, targeting POA agents for “breach” of care agreements. Ensure trusts are ironclad and POA terms limit liability.
- Missouri: With no civil FR for care, the risk is lower, but contract pitfalls persist. Review admission agreements with an elder law attorney.
- Planning Tips: Use a Medicaid-compliant trust with a five-year lookback strategy. Register out-of-state POAs (e.g., Tennessee to Ohio) to avoid Norris-like disputes. Monitor Medicaid appeals to prevent penalties.
Bartley warns of nursing homes undermining Medicaid plans with filial responsibility claims, even where prohibited. For aging in place, protect your legacy with a trust and legal counsel. For Medicaid planning, seek counsel that will provide ongoing representation to protect the plan- off-the-shelf trusts from online or seminar attorneys that only sell Medicaid trusts, leave you vulnerable.
For more articles regarding filial responsibility and the efforts of states to circumvent state and federal protections, see the following:
- Filial Responsibility Rule Means Son, Not Father, Must Pay Legal Bill for Negotiating Medicaid Penalty Reduction
- No Good Deed Goes Unpunished? Caregiver Exemption Does Not Apply When Medicaid Recipient Is Receiving Home Care
- Filial Support Laws Chaos: Pennsylvania and New Jersey Laws Clash
- Three Surprises to Watch Out for When Paying for Long-Term Care
- Maryland Repeals Filial Responsibility Law
- Filial Responsibility Laws Complicate Estate and Financial Planning
- Filial Responsibility In the News
- Filial Responsibility Laws Lead to Chaos
- Man Can't Challenge Discharge of Brother's Debt for Mom's Care under Filial Responsibility Law
- Use of Filial Responsibility to Collect a Nursing Home Debt Survives Federal Challenges
- Elderly Couple May Be Responsible for Adult Son's Unpaid Medical Bills
- California Heir Liable to Reimburse State for Mother's Medicaid Benefits
- Conveyance to Son Was Fraudulent, But His Siblings May Also Be Liable Under Filial Support Law
- Filial Responsibility- Complicating Estate, Retirement and Asset Protection Planning
- Pennsylvania's Filial Support Law Survives Federal Challenge (The Eades Case)
- Conveyance to Son Is Fraudulent, But Siblings May Also Be Liable Under Filial Support Law
- Adult Children Could Be Responsible for Parents' Nursing Home Bills
- Son Liable for Mother's Nursing Home Bill Under Filial Responsibility Law (The Pittas Case)
- Promissory Note Executed by Nursing Home Resident’s Daughter Is Not Illegal Third-Party Guarantee
- Filial Responsibility- Resident’s Son Not Liable for Breach of Contract Because He Did Not Cause His Mother to Be Ineligible for Medicaid;
- Judge Can Not Impose an ‘Unusual’ Condition on a Reversal of a Default Judgment in a Nursing Home Breach of Contract Lawsuit;
- Tortious Interference With Contractual Relationship Claim Most Recent Possible Remedy Nursing Homes can Employ Against Children of Nursing Home Residents;
- Conservator Owes Duty to Nursing Home to Timely Apply for Medicaid;
- Agent Under Power of Attorney Liable for Damages to Nursing Home for Breach of Contract;
- Conveyance to Son Was Fraudulent, But His Siblings May Also Be Liable Under Filial Support Law;
- Nursing Home May Sue Resident's Daughter for Breach of Contract.
Additional Resources:
