Supreme Court to Decide Whether Inherited IRA's Protected from Creditors

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that will decide whether inherited individual retirement accounts (IRAs) are available to creditors in bankruptcy. The decision in Clark v. Rameker will resolve a split between the lower courts.

Heidi Heffron-Clark inherited a $300,000 IRA from her mother. Inherited IRAs must be distributed within five years. During the five-year period, Mrs. Clark and her husband filed for bankruptcy. The Clarks argued the IRA was exempt from creditors because bankruptcy law protects retirement funds. A district court agreed with the Clarks, but the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals reversed in Clark v. Rameker (714 F.3d 559 (2013)), holding that the money in the IRA no longer constituted retirement funds.

Meanwhile, the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decided in In re Chilton (674 F.3d 486 (2012)), that funds from an inherited IRA should be exempt. The U.S. Supreme Court will resolve this issue later this term.

For more information about this case, click here.

Ambulance Driver Charged with Homicide in Death of Nursing Home Resident

McKnight's reports that the New York Attorney's General office has indicted a former medical transport driver for criminally negligent homicide related to the death of a nursing home resident.  

Driver Juan Garcia was working for Maeleen Ambulette Transport Inc. while transporting an elderly nursing home resident back to the facility from a dialysis appointment, when he came to an abrupt stop. The resident apparently was thrown from her wheelchair in the August 2010 incident. Garcia, 49, has admitted he had not buckled the resident's seatbelt, according to the attorney general's office.

Even though a certified nursing assistant in the ambulette asked Garcia to take the resident to the hospital, he proceeded to drive to the Gold Crest Care Center, the charges state. The resident subsequently underwent surgery for a fractured hip and died about a month later from complications.

“Had [Garcia] taken the most basic safety precautions, this vulnerable nursing home resident would not have died in this horrific way,” Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman stated.  Garcia was arraigned in Bronx County Supreme Court and released on his own recognizance, according to Schneiderman's office. He faces up to four years in prison if convicted.

Debt Owed to Nursing Home Is Dischargeable in Bankruptcy Court

A bankruptcy court rules that a nursing home cannot claim debt owed by the husband of a nursing home resident to the nursing home is nondischargeable as a domestic support obligation. In re Langan (Bankr. Dist. S.D., Nos. ADV-13-3003, BR 13-30001, Oct. 18, 2013).

Anna Langan died owing debt to the nursing home that provided her care.  The nursing home sued Mrs. Langan's husband, Francis Martin Langan, and Mr. Langan settled, agreeing to pay the nursing home $28,000. The settlement provided that Mr. Langan would not file for bankruptcy within 91 days following the nursing home's receipt of the settlement payment. Mr. Langan filed for bankruptcy one month later.

The nursing home filed a claim with the bankruptcy court, seeking a determination that its claim against Mr. Langan is nondischargeable debt. The nursing home alleged that Mr. Langan failed to pay for his wife's care even though he had assets to do so. Under bankruptcy law any debt "for a domestic support obligation" is exempted from a debtor's general discharge. Mr. Langan asked the court to dismiss the nursing home's claim.

The United States Bankruptcy Court, District of South Dakota, grants Mr. Langan's motion to dismiss, holding that the debt is not exempt from discharge. According to the court, because the nursing home "is not [d]ebtor's spouse, former spouse, or child, and the debt did not arise from a divorce or separation agreement," the debt does not fall under the "domestic support obligation" exception from discharge.

For the full text of this decision, click here.

Mishandling of Nursing Home Trust Accounts a Growing Problem

Many nursing home residents have have "resident trust funds" or "personal accounts" managed by the facility. It may be that the residents have no family members or family members do not want the responsibility, or the nursing facility prefers to manage the resident’s income. Recently, USA Today did an investigative report in which 1,500 facilities have been cited for mishandling of funds in such resident trust accounts. Most of the deficiencies were related to failing to pay interest on the money held, inadequate accounting, or failure to give residents sufficient access to their money. However, there were egregious cases where funds were misappropriated by those who were intended to protect them. Go here to read the full article.   

The USA Today article explains the problem, describes specific examples of account misuse, and provides some practical solutions to  minimize the risk of loss associated with these accounts.  In every case, the resident should have an effective General Durable Power of Attorney in place naming a trusted agent and  alternates. Many nursing home residents are unable to monitor their own accounts, or may be unable to monitor their own accounts during periods of illness, disability, or incapacity. An attorney-in-fact empowered by a Power of Attorney document can monitor the resident account, and even minimize its use by keeping a limited amount of funds in the account. If the agent is willing and able to pay the resident’s bills, the use of the account will be limited to small purchases and will be less tempting to those who are using the accounts for their own purposes.

Fortunately, the resident fund accounts are usually insured.  An attorney-in-fact can make a claim against the insurance company is a loss is discovered.  Such a claim may be frustrated if the resident is unable to prosecute a claim.  It is important that losses are identified quickly, and claims made timely.  

The attorney-in-fact should also make sure that ultimate disposition of the account is provided for, either by an assignment of the account to the resident's revocable trust, or by a transfer upon death or payable upon death designation.  Otherwise the account may require probate court disposition.    

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.

Many Consumers Will Lose Their Insurance Under Affordable Care Act

From Kaiser Health News: 

Rod Coons and Florence Peace, a married couple from Indianapolis, pay $403 a month for a family health plan that covers barely any of their individual medical care until each reaches up to $10,000 in claims. And that’s just the way they like it.

"I'm only really interested in catastrophic coverage," says Coons, 58, who retired last year after selling an electronic manufacturing business. Since they're generally healthy, the couple typically spends no more than $500 annually on medical care, says Coons.

"I'd prefer to stay with our current plan because it meets our existing needs."

That won’t be an option next year for Koons and Peace. In 2014, plans sold on the individual and small group markets will have to meet new standards for coverage and cost sharing, among other things. In addition to covering 10 so-called essential health benefits and covering many preventive care services at no cost, plans must pay at least 60 percent of allowed medical expenses, and cap annual out-of-pocket spending at $6,350 for individuals and $12,700 for families. (The only exception is for plans that have grandfathered status under the law.)

Plans with $10,000 deductibles won’t make the cut, say experts, nor will many other plans that require high cost sharing or provide limited benefits, excluding prescription drugs or doctor visits from coverage, for example.

According to the Department of Health and Human Services, based on the 10 states and the District of Columbia that have so far proposed individual market premiums for next year, the average individual monthly rate will be $321 for a mid-level plan.

Many policyholders don't realize their plans won't meet the standards set by the Affordable Care Act next year, say experts.

Read the rest of the article here.

Woman Prevails in Guardianship to Protect Her Wishes

Momentous news from the Washington Post:

In a victory for the rights of adults with disabilities, a judge declared Friday that a 29-year-old woman with Down syndrome can live the life she wants, rejecting a guardianship request from her parents that would have allowed them to keep her in a group home against her will.

The ruling thrilled Jenny Hatch and her supporters, who included some of the country’s most prominent disability advocates.  For more than a year, Margaret Jean Hatch, whom everyone calls Jenny, had been under a temporary guardianship and living in a series of group homes, removed from the life she knew. Hatch wanted to continue working at a thrift store and living with friends Kelly Morris and Jim Talbert, who employed her and took her into their home last year when she needed a place to recover after a bicycle accident.

                                                             *      *     *

Legally, Hatch’s case came down to two questions: Was she an incapacitated adult in need of a guardian, and, if so, who would best serve in that role — her mother and stepfather, or Morris and Talbert?

But for national experts on the rights of people with disabilities, several of whom testified on Hatch’s behalf, the case was about much more. It was about an individual’s right to choose how to live and the government’s progress in providing the help needed to integrate even those with the most profound needs into the community.

In the end, Newport News Circuit Court Judge David F. Pugh said he believed that Hatch, who has an IQ of about 50, needed a guardian to help her make decisions but that he had also taken into account her preferences. He designated Morris and Talbert her temporary guardians for the next year, with the goal of ultimately helping her achieve more independence.

“For anyone who has been told you can’t do something, you can’t make your own decisions, I give you Jenny Hatch — the rock that starts the avalanche,” her attorney, Jonathan Martinis, exulted after the decision.

The decision is momentous because it is so rare that a person deemed incompetent or incapacitated is given any legal ability to direct his or her guardianship, or direct decisions of the guardian.  Guardianship, unfortunately, impacts the disabled, including the aged as they confront short-term and long-term disabilities.  Too often, seniors do not consider carefully this issue in crafting an estate and financial plan.

For a prior article regarding this case, go here. 

For more information regarding guardianship, see the following articles:

• Estate Plans Should Consider and Attempt to Resolve Guardianship;
• Illinois Permits Guardian Authority to Petition for Termination of a Ward's Marriage; 
• GAO reports on Guardianship Abuse;
• National Groups Acknowledge Need for Guardianship Reform;
• Report on Abuse by Guardians and the Guardianship Process Released;
• Another Reason for Guardianship Planning: Guardian Convicted of Homicide in Death of Ward 

Woman Prevails in Guardianship to Protect Her Wishes

Momentous news from the Washington Post:

In a victory for the rights of adults with disabilities, a judge declared Friday that a 29-year-old woman with Down syndrome can live the life she wants, rejecting a guardianship request from her parents that would have allowed them to keep her in a group home against her will.

The ruling thrilled Jenny Hatch and her supporters, who included some of the country’s most prominent disability advocates.  For more than a year, Margaret Jean Hatch, whom everyone calls Jenny, had been under a temporary guardianship and living in a series of group homes, removed from the life she knew. Hatch wanted to continue working at a thrift store and living with friends Kelly Morris and Jim Talbert, who employed her and took her into their home last year when she needed a place to recover after a bicycle accident.

                                                             *      *     *

Legally, Hatch’s case came down to two questions: Was she an incapacitated adult in need of a guardian, and, if so, who would best serve in that role — her mother and stepfather, or Morris and Talbert?

But for national experts on the rights of people with disabilities, several of whom testified on Hatch’s behalf, the case was about much more. It was about an individual’s right to choose how to live and the government’s progress in providing the help needed to integrate even those with the most profound needs into the community.

In the end, Newport News Circuit Court Judge David F. Pugh said he believed that Hatch, who has an IQ of about 50, needed a guardian to help her make decisions but that he had also taken into account her preferences. He designated Morris and Talbert her temporary guardians for the next year, with the goal of ultimately helping her achieve more independence.

“For anyone who has been told you can’t do something, you can’t make your own decisions, I give you Jenny Hatch — the rock that starts the avalanche,” her attorney, Jonathan Martinis, exulted after the decision.

The decision is momentous because it is so rare that a person deemed incompetent or incapacitated is given any legal ability to direct his or her guardianship, or direct decisions of the guardian.  Guardianship, unfortunately, impacts the disabled, including the aged as they confront short-term and long-term disabilities.  Too often, seniors do not consider carefully this issue in crafting an estate and financial plan.

For a prior article regarding this case, go here. 

For more information regarding guardianship, see the following articles:

• Estate Plans Should Consider and Attempt to Resolve Guardianship;
• Illinois Permits Guardian Authority to Petition for Termination of a Ward's Marriage; 
• GAO reports on Guardianship Abuse;
• National Groups Acknowledge Need for Guardianship Reform;
• Report on Abuse by Guardians and the Guardianship Process Released;
• Another Reason for Guardianship Planning: Guardian Convicted of Homicide in Death of Ward 

Disabled Woman's Guardianship Battle Draws Attention to Guardianship Risks

A 29-year-old Virginia woman with Down syndrome is fighting her parents' attempt to obtain guardianship in a case that has drawn attention to the inherent conflict existing in the laws regarding adult guardianship. These laws seek to protect persons who cannot help themselves, but inherently risk the freedom and independence of those persons who are capable of helping themselves.

There seems to be little question that Ms. Hatch wants to make decisions independently. Before August 2012, apparently, neither of Margaret Jean Hatch's divorced parents wanted to care for her. According to published reports, her father claimed that he couldn't provide an appropriate level of care, and her mother claimed that her relationship with her daughter was too contentious. Consequently, Ms. Hatch, who has an IQ of 52, moved back and forth between friends' apartments and group homes, eventually living with her employers, Kelly Morris and Jim Talbert, owners of a retail shop.

Ms. Morris and Mr. Talbert determined that Ms. Hatch would have a better chance of qualifying for Medicaid waiver services if she was homeless, so they encouraged her to move into yet another group home until her Medicaid application was approved. Ms. Hatch moved back in with the couple once she began receiving waiver services, but two days later, her mother, Julia Ross, and her stepfather, Richard Ross, filed for guardianship. According to the Washington Post, the Rosses claimed that Ms. Hatch "lies, causes confusion, is inappropriate behaving with men, contacts neighbors relentlessly, and is obsessed with others who are nice to her."

Ms. Hatch chose to contest the guardianship, and she has drawn support from members of her community who insist that she should have the right to live where she wants. Her supporters have gone so far as to start a "Justice for Jenny" campaign. The case has drawn the interest of national advocates, including Jennifer Mathis of the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, who told the Post, "[t]here is a default assumption that people with intellectual disabilities and people with mental illness need people to make decisions for them, that they can’t, with aid, fend for themselves. Which just isn’t true."

The Hatch case illustrates the inherent conflicts that arise under guardianship laws, especially for people who may need some assistance, but who may not require full guardianship and do not, therefore, deserve the complete loss of control of their lives and affairs.  

President Obama's 2014 Budget Includes Troubling Changes Affecting Estate Planning

The celebration following the federal government's increase in the estate tax exemption to $5.25 million is, perhaps, destined to be short lived.  President Obama’s proposed budget plan for 2014 came out on April 10, and proposes substantial changes to the estate and income tax code.  These changes would mean real changes in estate planning. 

According to the budget plan, the federal estate tax rate will increase from 40 to 45 percent. The individual exemption equivalent will be reduced from $5.25 million to $3.5 million, and it will not adjust upward over time to keep pace with inflation. This means that as time goes on and inflation increases, people will surpass the exemption mark due to appreciation in the value of their estate, and be subject to federal estate taxes. Further, these changes are proposed  as "permanent changes" meaning that they will not sunset or lapse in time.  

The lifetime gifting exemption equivalent is also affected, since the gift and estate taxes use a unified exemption.  The maximum amount that a person can leave his or her family in combined taxable lifetime gifts and inheritance is thus reduced from $5.25 million, which increases with inflation, to a non-adjusting maximum of $3.5 million.

Limiting Grantor Retained Annuity Trusts

More surprising and substantive changes are proposed for sophisticated estate plans. A GRAT (grantor retained annuity trust) is a tax-reducing trust popular for giving assets to family members while retaining an income benefit for some defined period of time.  The grantor puts his or her assets into the trust and receives  an annuity which pays a fixed amount each year. Gift tax is paid when the GRAT is created and the tax is based upon the present value of the remainder of the trust, meaning that the value of the gift, for gift tax purposes is substantially less than the actual fair market value of the assets.  One of the real challenges in such planning is that if the grantor dies before the trust ends, the assets become part of the grantor's taxable estate,and the purpose for the trust, reducing estate taxes, is frustrated.. If the grantor survives the term of the trust, any assets left to the beneficiary — usually the grantor’s children — are tax free. GRATs have typically been short-term trusts to make it more likely that the grantor survives beyond the term of the trust.

The proposed budget will require a minimum trust term of ten (10)  years for all GRATS. This defined longer term makes it more likely that the grantor may die during the trust’s existence, and increases the chances that the trust does nothing to reduce the value of the taxable estate. If death of the grantor occurs within the ten year term, the trust is taxed as part of estate, effectively losing nearly half its value to federal estate taxes.  The proposed budget, therefore, limits greatly the attractiveness of  GRATS as an estate planning option.

Eliminating Intentionally Defective Grantor Trusts

The proposed budget also effectively eliminates intentionally defective grantor trusts (IDGT).  An IDGT  is used to freeze the value of appreciating assets for tax purposes. This strategy allows the grantor to be the owner of the assets for income tax purposes but it removes the value of the assets from the grantor’s taxable estate. As the value of the trust increases, the transferor receives the income earned by the assets (and pays tax on the income) but the assets grow outside of the transferor’s estate.

Under proposed budget:, there would be no separation in the tax codes for this trust. Estate or gift tax would have to be paid on the trust at the time of the owner’s death. This would make the IDGT obsolete.

Signalling a Change?

Perhaps the most significant change reflected in the proposed budget is that the federal government has, once again, returned to a  lack of appreciation for the benefits of certainty and stability in estate and business planning.  Among the reasons that many celebrated the recent changes to the estate tax code (recent being changes adopted at the last minute, less than six months ago), is that the inflation adjustment and portability provisions signaled, to some,  an appreciation for long-term stability and certainty.  It appeared to some that having resolved the estate tax exemption amount, and having adjusted it automatically for inflation over time,  the federal government was, in effect, acknowledging the need for stability and certainty, eschewing uncertainty, and detrimental periodic and last minute legislative changes.  

Of course, perhaps the proposed budget is really the "same as it ever was."  

This article is based in large part on an article by Phoebe Venable, entitled "Obama's Budget Plan would Hit Estate Plans Hard," published May 11, 2013, in the Tennessean, and available online here.