Fraudulent Transfer Claim Against Nursing Home Resident's Sons Survives

Nursing homes and state departments of Medicaid will become more proficient in developing and implementing techniques to pursue assets in resource recovery over time.  Accordingly, planning techniques must be more, not less, sophisticated.  An excellent exampleof just how devastating simple, self-help, plans lacking in sophistication can be, is the planning of the Nyce brothers.  A U.S. district court recently ruled that a nursing home can assert its case for fraudulent transfer against the brothers, who transferred their mother's funds to themselves, because the claim survived the resident's death. Kindred Nursing Centers East, LLC v. Estate of Barbara Nyce (U.S. Dist. Ct., D. Vt., No. 5:16-cv-73, June 21, 2016).

Roger and Kinsley Nyce were agents under their mother's power of attorney. Their mother, Barbara Nyce, entered a nursing home and signed an admission agreement in which she agreed to pay the nursing home or apply for Medicaid. Ms. Nyce filed for Medicaid, but the application was denied because the Nyce brothers withdrew money from Ms. Nyce's bank accounts to pay themselves. Ms. Nyce also transferred her real estate to her sons. Ms. Nyce died owing the nursing home $137,586.92.

After Ms. Nyce died, the nursing home sued her estate as well as the Nyce brothers individually for fraudulent transfer. The estate cross-claimed against the Nyces, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and conversion. The case was removed to federal court, and the Nyces moved to dismiss the claims. The Nyces argued that the estate couldn't sue for fraudulent transfer after Ms. Nyce died and that the estate's cross claim fits into the probate exception to federal jurisdiction.

The United States District Court, District of Vermont, denied the motion to dismiss. The court held that the fraudulent transfer claim survived Ms. Nyce's death because state law does not require that there be a pending claim in order for an action to survive. The court further holds that the probate exception cannot be used to dismiss widely recognized torts, such as breach of fiduciary duty.

The brothers plan for protecting their mom's assets didn't turn out to be so Nyce. 

Court Invalidates Pocket Deed As Fraudulent Effort to Defraud the Surviving Spouse

[The following is reprinted from my former newsletter, Your Estate Matters.]

A recent case from Tennessee illustrates the dangers inherent in using "pocket deeds." Pocket deeds are executed during the owner's life, but recorded after the owner's death.  While they are rarely used by attorneys or serious planners, they still find their way into the plans of individuals who may devise the schemes without legal advice.  

The case concerns the marriage of Ancie Lee Maness  and Jewell Maness,  When they married, he already had three grown sons and a 330-acre farm in Henderson County, Tennessee. He and Jewell both worked outside the farm.  Her income paid for food, utilities and household bills, but his  income was mostly used to pay expenses on the farm.

Mr. Maness ran a small herd of cattle at the farm, and allowed his sons to keep a few head of their own on the property. At different times, Mr. Maness even gave each of his sons an eight-acre parcel on the edge of the farm. It was clear, however, that Mr. Maness operated the farm, with only occasional help from his sons. Until 1992, the farm income, and Mr. Maness’ wages, went to pay off a mortgage on the farm as well.

Shortly after Mr. Maness’ death in 1993, one of the sons informed Mrs. Maness that he had transferred the farm to them nearly ten years earlier. When she investigated, she discovered that Mr. Maness had signed a deed to the property, conveying it to his three sons, and had given the deed to his son Willie. He had instructed Willie and his wife not to tell anyone about the deed, and to hold it in their safe deposit box.  They had removed it and recorded it three days after Mr. Maness’ death, and the title now appeared to be in the sons’ names.

Mrs. Maness sued to set aside the transaction, alleging that it was fraudulent because it had the effect of depriving her of her statutory right to inherit a portion of her husband’s property. In Tennessee, as in most states, a surviving spouse is entitled to at least a share of the deceased spouse’s estate, and Mrs. Maness argued that the transaction deprived her of that right.

Noting the secrecy with which the deed was cloaked, the Tennessee Court of Appeals agreed with Mrs. Maness. The court also noted that even by a conservative estimate the farm constituted nearly two-thirds of the value of Mr. Maness’ estate, and Mr. Maness’ behavior in hiding the transaction from his wife indicated that he had intended to defraud her of her inheritance rights. 

To read the entire case go here: Maness v. Estate of Maness, Tenn. Court of Appeals, November 12, 1997.

Conveyance to Son Is Fraudulent, But Siblings May Also Be Liable Under Filial Support Law

North Dakota's highest court determined that a nursing home resident's sale of property to his son should be set aside as a fraudulent conveyance, and that the son was personally responsible for his parent's debts under the state's filial responsibility law. But the court also held that the trial court should not have declared the son personally responsible for his parent's debt under the state's filial responsibility law without also deciding whether his siblings were liable under the same law. Four Seasons Healthcare Center v. Linderkamp (N.D., Nos. 20120432, 20120433, Sep. 4th, 2013).

Earl and Ruth Linderkamp owned a farm. They leased the land to one of their sons, Elden, who farmed the property. Elden claimed that he had an oral agreement with his parents that they would compensate him for improvements to the land as part of the consideration to buy the property at a later date. In 2006, The Linderkamps sold the property to Elden for $50,000, well below its market value. Elden claimed he had made more than $100,000 in improvements to the property. Soon after, the Linderkamps entered a nursing home where they remained until their deaths, leaving a total of $93,000 in unpaid nursing home charges.

After the Linderkamps died, the nursing home sued Elden to set aside the property transfer as a fraudulent conveyance. The trial court set aside the conveyance, finding the Linderkamps did not receive equivalent value in exchange for the property. The court also determined Elden was personally responsible for his parents' debt under the state's filial responsibility law, but refused to determine his siblings' liability. Elden appealed, arguing the conveyance was not fraudulent and the court should not impose personal liability against him for his parents' nursing home debt.

The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed in part, holding the conveyance was fraudulent, but remanded the case to determine whether Elden is personally responsible for the debt. According to the court, there was no evidence of an oral agreement or improvements made to the property "and the conveyance was made when there was a reasonable belief the parents would be entering a nursing home and would not be able to fully pay for their long-term care." The court concluded that the trial court erred in finding Elden personally liable for his parents' nursing home debt without deciding the other children's potential liability under the filial responsibility law.