Smart Home Technologies: A Game-Changer for Aging in Place and Elder Care

Imagine a quiet morning in your own kitchen: the coffee brews on a timer, lights gently brighten to ease you awake, and a soft voice reminds you it's time for your daily walk. If you stumble, a sensor quietly alerts a family member on their phone, before you even realize you're shaken. This isn't science fiction; it's the reality of smart home health technologies (SHHTs). A comprehensive review published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (January 2024) shows they're transforming how seniors stay safe and independent at home. Drawing from 163 studies spanning 2000 to 2021, the review analyzed feedback from thousands of older adults and caregivers worldwide, revealing SHHTs as powerful allies against frailty, falls, chronic illnesses, and isolation. For readers of the Aging-in-Place Planning and Elderlaw Blog, this isn't just about gadgets; it's about tools that support autonomy, ease family burdens, and prevent the slide into institutional care. As we've repeatedly discussed, integrating tech with legal safeguards like trusts, supported decision-making (SDM), and advance directives creates a robust safety net. This article breaks down the review's insights in plain terms, compares tech to traditional care, and shares everyday examples to help you envision and implement these solutions.

What Are Smart Home Health Technologies? A Simple BreakdownThink of SHHTs as your home turning into a thoughtful companion, not a babysitter. Unlike standalone devices (like a single blood pressure cuff), SHHTs create an interconnected "ecosystem" of sensors, apps, and gadgets that work together via the Internet of Things (IoT).  You’re likely familiar with the Internet, the global network that lets you email grandkids, stream shows, or shop online. But IoT, or the Internet of Things, is a special layer on top of the Internet that connects everyday objects in your home, not just computers, to each other and to you. Think of it as giving your home a nervous system: devices "talk" to sense, react, and keep you safe without you lifting a finger.
  The review identifies six main types, each tackling a piece of aging's challenges:

• Physiological monitoring: Tracks vital signs like heart rate or blood pressure, spotting issues before they escalate, and tailored to your specific condition or situation.
• Functional monitoring: Watches daily activities, like movement or sleep patterns, to catch signs of decline or improvement.
• Safety monitoring: Automatic lights, fall detectors, or wandering alerts to prevent accidents.
• Security monitoring: Cameras or locks to ward off intruders or unauthorized visitors.
• Social interaction tools: Video calls or companion applications for virtual chats, combating loneliness and isolation.
• Cognitive/sensory assistance: Reminders for meds, meals, or appointments, easing memory lapses and supporting good memory habits.

Picture it like this: In a traditional setup, a senior might forget a pill, slip in a dark hallway, or feel isolated after a family visit ends. With SHHTs, a sensor notices the missed dose and chimes a gentle reminder; lights flicker on as you approach the hallway; and an application initiates communication between you and family or friends, or alternately,  "chats" with you, sharing stories until your granddaughter calls via screen. It's proactive care that feels personal, not intrusive.The Evidence: How SHHTs Outshine Traditional CareThe review sifted through real-world feedback from older adults (over 65) and caregivers, comparing tech-assisted homes to those without. The results? SHHTs excel in promoting independence and safety, often achieving more with less human effort than traditional methods.
Continuous monitoring is praised in over 70% of studies. Without tech, caregivers might check in daily, but delays could mean a fall goes unnoticed for hours, leading to physical injury, psychological or emotional trauma,  or hospital stays. With SHHTs, sensors "watch" 24/7—think of a bedroom mat that detects if you get up at night and alerts your phone if you're down too long. One study compared this to manual checks: tech users had 20% fewer undetected falls, giving families peace of mind without constant worry. It's like having an invisible guardian angel, not a hovering one.
Social interaction tools offer another win. Loneliness hits hard in aging, worsening memory and mood like a slow-burning fire. Traditional fixes? Scheduled calls or visits, but life gets busy. Enter tech companions: a fluffy seal or cat that "listens" and responds with purrs or stories, or a screen robot that joins family dinners virtually. In trials, seniors with robots reported feeling "connected" 30% more often than those relying on phone calls alone.  Imagine your grandkid "visiting" via a tablet that follows you around the house, turning solitude into shared moments without the drive.
For promoting independence, consider exercise and routine aids. Without tech, a senior might skip walks due to fear of falls, leading to weakness and more isolation. SHHTs change that: a robotic tutor guides chair yoga or balance drills, adapting to your pace, while sensors track progress and celebrate small wins. Compared to group classes (hard if mobility's an issue), this lets you "train" alone or with a virtual coach, building confidence at your own rhythm. One example: A motion-detecting mat in the living room "nudge" you to stretch after sitting too long, turning passive monitoring into active encouragement.
Even cognitive assistance beats paper lists. Med reminders via voice assistants (like Alexa) ping softly, while apps log moods or habits for doctor chats. Versus sticky notes that fade or get lost, this creates a digital diary your family can review together, spotting patterns early, like sleep dips signaling depression, without invading space.
The review isn't all rosy; barriers like clunky designs or costs exist, but solutions abound, many devices start under $100, and Medicare often covers wearables.Why This Matters for You: Everyday Wins for Aging in PlaceFor seniors, SHHTs mean staying put amid health hiccups, dodging the pitfalls of assisted living where understaffing leads to falls or neglect, or nursing homes where seniors are exposed to a myriad of risks threatening the health, safety, and life of seniors, nearly one-third of whom are injured or killed within the first thirty days of care as a result of mistakes and neglect. 
 Families gain breathing room: remote alerts cut worry hours, preventing burnout that ends in institutionalization or guardianship battles. Picture a daughter in another state sleeping soundly, knowing her mom's fall sensor is vigilant, versus the old dread of "What if she's hurt and I don't know?"
Legally, weave tech into your plan: Add to your advance directives, trusts,  power of attorney,  and supported decision-making directives, "Fund SHHTs for safety and independence," or nominate supporters in SDM agreements to manage devices. Trusts can earmark gifting for gadgets, shielding Medicaid eligibility while funding freedom.Conclusion: From Tools to TransformationSHHTs aren't a cure-all, but as the review shows, they're a bridge to dignity, turning homes into havens of proactive care. By comparing their gentle nudges to the isolation of unchecked decline, we see their true power: not replacing life, but enriching it. While this article has provided a thorough overview of SHHTs for aging in place, it is by no means comprehensive. The landscape of technology and care evolves rapidly, influenced by new innovations and personal needs. Therefore, readers must remain vigilant, consulting reliable sources like Cochrane reviews, AARP, and local elder law attorneys, while evaluating their situations to identify risks. By combining awareness with legal tools, seniors and families can safeguard independence and thrive while aging in place. For ongoing support, consult a professional and stay informed.  Your security depends on proactive engagement.

Trump Administration Removes Burdens and Threats of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA)

The following is from a Treasury Department Announcement issued March 2, 2025:

The Treasury Department is announcing today that, with respect to the Corporate Transparency Act ("CTA"), not only will it not enforce any penalties or fines associated with the beneficial ownership information reporting rule under the existing regulatory deadlines, but it will further not enforce any penalties or fines against U.S. citizens or domestic reporting companies or their beneficial owners after the forthcoming rule changes take effect either. The Treasury Department will further be issuing a proposed rulemaking that will narrow the scope of the rule to foreign reporting companies only. Treasury takes this step in the interest of supporting hard-working American taxpayers and small businesses and ensuring that the rule is appropriately tailored to advance the public interest.

U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent issued the following statement:

"This is a victory for common sense.  Today’s action is part of President Trump’s bold agenda to unleash American prosperity by reining in burdensome regulations, in particular for small businesses that are the backbone of the American economy."

Prior to this announcement, there was a great deal of uncertainty regarding the risk of non-compliance with the Act's reporting requirements.  There were several lawsuits seeking to block implementation of the Act.  On January 7, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued an order staying FinCEN’s regulations implementing the BOI reporting requirements, precluding FinCEN from requiring BOI reporting or otherwise enforcing the CTA’s requirements. On February 5, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice—on behalf of Treasury—filed a notice of appeal of the district court’s order and, in parallel, requested a stay of the order during the appeal.

On February 18, 2025, the court agreed to stay its January 7, 2025, order until the appeal is completed. Given this decision, FinCEN’s regulations implementing the BOI reporting requirements of the CTA were no longer stayed. Thus, subject to any applicable court orders, BOI reporting was finally mandatory, but FinCEN notified the courts and the public that it would be providing additional time for companies to report.

The United States Corporate Transparency Act (the “CTA”) became effective at the start of 2024. Under the CTA, your company may have been be required to report its “beneficial owners” to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”), a bureau of the Treasury Department charged with protecting the US financial system from illicit use, fighting money laundering and promoting national security. Failure to report risked significant fines and penalties for both companies and for their beneficial owners.  The law also exempted large and publicly traded companies. focusing instead on smaller entities, like small limited liability companies, corporations, and partnerships. 

The CTA requires non-exempt existing companies to file a report with FinCEN before the end of the 2024 calendar year and requires companies that are newly created or registered to file a more detailed report within 90 days after the company is first organized or registered in the US. The CTA also requires companies to update these filings within 30 days of any change in previously filed information.

The CTA only applies to organizations that either(a) are formed by making a filing with a state’s Secretary of State (or other office charged with forming entities) or (b) are foreign companies that have registered to do business in the United States by making a filing with a state Secretary of State (or other office). So, the CTA does not apply to sole proprietorships, general partnerships or (depending on state) unincorporated nonprofit associations, or trusts.

The CTA contains 23 exemptions for various types of companies. Most of these exemptions are for companies which are already subject to a high amount of regulation, such as public companies, banks, insurance companies, other types of financial firms and utilities. There are also exemptions for certain types of entities where either Congress or FinCEN believed the burden of reporting would be inappropriate or unnecessary. These include tax-exempt entities, including most charities, and certain inactive entities. Importantly, The CTA also has an exemption for larger companies who meet certain employment and income thresholds and which also have operating offices in the U.S.

Crypto and Estate Planning: One Man's effort to Recover $800 million in Bitcoin

You can play the video in the embedded viewer by clicking on it, or

you can play the full size video in its own window by clicking below (RECOMMENDED):

Crypto and Estate Planning: One Man's effort to Recover $800 million in Bitcoin

In this article we return to the saga of James Howells, the subject of a previous article on this blog, as he continues his years-long battle to get back a hard drive that contains a discarded bitcoin key currently worth somewhere around $800 million by offering to purchase a landfill in Great Britain in an effort to find the wallet before it closes down. James Howells had repeatedly requested that the Newport City Council, in South Wales, grant him access to the mountains of waste to find the hard drive that was accidentally discarded in 2013.  

When his repeated requests were denied, he offered to fully fund the excavation process and share 25% of the recovered Bitcoin with the Newport City Council.  When that offer was rejected, he filed a lawsuit to compel the Council to accept his offer.  The lawsuit seems to be in the vein of 'taxpayer" suits common in the U.S. where a taxpayer contests some official act or denial as wasteful of taxpayer dollars. That case, however, ended with a judge dismissing his claim holding that Howells had “no reasonable grounds” for bringing the claim and that there was “no realistic prospect” of success if the case were to proceed to a full trial."

Now, the city is planning to close the landfill for good.  

Whether this is a welcome or ominous development for Mr. Howells remains to be seen.  Mr. Howells has not given up, though, as he is now proposing to purchase the landfill. His plan involves either reclaiming and remediating the landfill and turning it into a park, or re-launching it as a landfill.  

Mr. Howell's predicament underscores the risks and challenges of cryptocurrency investing beyond just the risk of investment.  Digital currencies have digital or virtual 'keys" that must be protected.  For more information, please consider the following:

LegalVault® Offers Solution to Estate Planning Challenges of Bitcoin and Cryptocurrencies 

The Strange Case of Crypto Exchange QuadrigaCX: Death and a Missing $200 million 

 

Second Marriage? FUND YOUR TRUST! A Pour Over Will is Subject to Spousal Claims

You can play the video in the embedded viewer by clicking on it, or

you can play the full size video in its own window by clicking below (RECOMMENDED):

A Pour-Over Will is Subject to Spousal Claims

A recent case provides an object lesson for those in a second marriage who either have a trust separate from their spouse, or have retained their original trust upon remarriage.  The case is also instructive regarding trust funding in general. 

Only a properly and completely funded trust protects your estate planning choices. A pour-over will does not magically repose assets in your trust upon death; it must be probated in order to be effective, at least in most states.  Probate means risk, cost, and expense. A pour-over will is subject to the same limitations, requirements, risks, costs, expenses, advantages and disadvantages and rewards as any will created where there is not trust.  One of these risks is spousal claims.

The Montana Supreme Court held that a widow could claim a spousal elective share of the deceased husband's estate, notwithstanding that her deceased husband’s will directed everything to his trust, and, by implication, even if the trust provides a substantial share to the surviving spouse. In Silverwood v. Tokowitz (Mont. No. S-23-0114, January 12, 2024).

Carol Tokowitz was married to her husband, Neal Tokowitz, for 30 years before he died. Mr. Tokowitz left behind surviving children from a previous marriage. He had a pour-over will that funded a revocable living trust. His will did not name his wife or anyone else as a beneficiary, but, as is customary, directed assets only to the trust.

Mr. Tokowitz's executor, Mr. Silverwood, filed a petition to probate the will, suggesting that some assets or property were not owned or controlled by the trust.  Mrs. Tokowitz asserted her rights to the elective share of her late husband’s estate under the Wyoming spousal elective share statute.

An elective share is a term used to describes a proportion of an estate which the surviving spouse of the deceased may claim in place of what s/he was left in the decedent's will. It may also be called a widow's share or statutory share, or described as an election against the will, or a forced share.  In Ohio it is governed by Ohio Revised Code 2106.01 (last accessed 2/10/2025), and is often described as a surviving spouse "taking" against the will.  In Missouri, it is governed by Section 474.160 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri (last accessed 2/10/2025).

The Wyoming spousal elective share statute provides that a married person domiciled in the state must provide a spouse at least an elective share subject to distribution in the will. If, as in this case, the surviving spouse is not a parent of the decedent’s surviving children, the elective share is a quarter or twenty-five (25%)of the estate.

The probate court granted Mrs. Tokowitz her spousal share.  Mr. Silverwood and a trustee, Randy Green, (hereafter referred to simply as "Mr. Tokowitz's family")  argued that she was not entitled to take a spousal elective share and that taking an elective share should prevent her from receiving anything from the trust. In essence, Mr. Tokowitz's family was arguing that granting her an elective share, on top of a percentage of the assets in the trust estate permitted Mrs. Tokowitz to receive more that Mr. Tokowitz intended her to receive.  Indeed, given an elective share of the probate estate, it is likely that Mrs. Tokowitz's total inheritance exceeded that which she would have received if all assets had been reposed in the trust at death.  A hypothetical illustration follows:

The probate court declined to make any ruling regarding disposition of the trust estate.  Mr. Tokowitz's family appealed. 

Mr. Tokowitz's family first argued that although Mr. Tokowitz was a Wyoming resident, he was not domiciled in Wyoming full-time.  A domicile is a legal residence where a person intends to stay. A person can have many residences but only one domicile. The Supreme Court rejected the argument.  The petition to probate the will (filed by Mr. Tokowitz's family) will stated that he was a resident of Park County, Wyoming, but the pour-over will stated that he was domiciled there. According to the court, since the will presented evidence that the decedent’s domicile was in Wyoming, Mrs. Tokowitz met her burden of establishing a Wyoming domicile. The burden then shifted to Mr. Tokowitz's family to disprove the statement in the will, and they failed to show that Mr. Tokowitz was domiciled elsewhere. According to the Supreme Court, it was sufficient that the probate court implied that Mr. Tokowitz was domiciled in Wyoming when the will was created and executed, and applied Wyoming law to determine Mrs. Tokowitz's elective share.  In other words, the probate court did not make an explicit "finding" regarding Mr. Tokowitz's domicile.    

The Tokowitz's family's next argument concerned the amount Mrs. Tokowitz would receive under the trust. They asserted that the probate court should not have given her the elective share because it did not know whether she would receive more or less than a quarter of the estate under the trust. The Supreme Court dismissed the argument holding that the trust’s terms are not relevant to the probate estate. The spousal elective share statute solely pertains to the will. Mr. Tokowitz’s will only left his property to his trust and did not name his wife, which effectively entitles her to the spousal elective share statute.

Finally, Mr. Tokowitz's family claimed that the property was not subject to probate because the will poured all assets and property into the trust. Property that passes by way of a pour-over will, however, is part of the probated estate and subject to the spousal elective share. Assets that transfer through a pour-over will are not exempt from the probate estate, or its rules and regulations simply because they estate assets ultimately repose to a trust.

The Supreme Court held that the lower court did not err when it declined to rule on Mrs. Tokowitz’s interests in the trust, holding that once the assets pass to the trust, they become non-probate assets. The Supreme Court could find no  case law or statutory authority supporting a ruling on non-probate assets in the probate case.

The Supreme Court of Montana held that the district court correctly allowed Mrs. Tokowitz to take a spousal elective share, and that the lower court rightly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on claims arising from the trust.

This case became very complicated by the circumstances and the law.  One assumes the value of the assets warranted appeal to the Montana Supreme Court. All of the complexity, cost, and expense would have been unnecessary if the property and/or assets were funded to the trust prior to Mr. Tokowitz's death. 

Planes, Trains, and Automobiles- In or Out of a Revocable Living Trust?

You can play the video in the embedded viewer by clicking on it, or

you can play the video fill size in its own window by clicking below (RECOMMENDED): 

Planes, Trains, and Automobiles Should Normally Be In Your Revocable Living Trust

In the video above, I discuss a recent MSN.com article entitled "Five Items to Leave Out of Your Revocable Living Trust."  (the article link is already broken, but there is an image in the video, and you can also view the article online here (last accessed 1/18/2025); you will have to scroll down past the first few articles). 

The author writes as follows:

         "Vehicles. Whether it’s a ’63 Corvette, Harley chopper or prop plane, all that’s required to pass it on is a simple written instruction to transfer the title to a beneficiary. In a trust, you’re exposed to lawsuits over accidents that involved the vehicle." 

Generally, I disagree. Vehemently.

In the video, I discuss the following:

1. Articles, publications, seminars, and presentations should never be construed as legal advice

2.  The author suggests that only a simple written instruction is necessary to transfer a title to a beneficiary, which statement is misleading or incorrect.

3.  Beneficiary and Transfer on Death Designations may sometimes work to avoid probate, but they have limitations and risks, and do not constitute a 'plan' to avoid probate (see links below).  

4. The liability issue raised by the author makes no sense for most revocable living trusts settled in most states.

5. The author assumes that the only purpose of a revocable living trust is to avoid probate, which is untrue, and assets outside of a trust do not serve and may impair lifetime planning benefits of a trust:

• Consistent and competent lifetime management of assets is a lifetime planning objective best accomplished with a trust.

• Guardianship avoidance is a lifetime planning objective best accomplished with a trust.

• Protection of assets from a court-appointed guardian is a lifetime planning objective that can only be accomplished with a trust.

• Aging in Place Planning is a lifetime planning objective that can only be accomplished with a trust.

I acknowledge in the video that there are always exceptions, and that the author may not have actually been considering revocable living trusts when drafting the article, but generally I disagrees with the headline and conclusion of the author regarding planes, trains, and automobiles. 

Consider additionally the following: 

• Beware Direct Transfer Designations (TODs and PODs);
• Aging in Place Planning Heightens Necessity of Trust Funding;
• Beware Direct Transfer Designations (TODs and PODs)- Part II: Ohio Transfer of Death Designation Affidavit (TODDA) for Real Estate- Lapse of Insurance Coverage;
• Beware Direct Transfer Designations (TODs and PODs)- Part III- Transfer on Death Deed for Real Estate Results in Loss of Insurance Coverage and Impairment of Asset Value.   

I urge you to attend an "Aging in Place Planning" presentation by signing up for an upcoming live webinar.  You can find these periodically on my blog or on the events page of the firm's Facebook page.  You don't need to wait, however, for a scheduled event; there is a recorded version available here: https://bit.ly/Aging-in-Place-Workshop.  You might also consider inviting your children and trusted advisors to attend.

 

No Lift Policies? Will Your Institutional Care Provider Pick You Up When You Fall?

 

You can press play to watch the video in the article frame, or 

click here

to watch the video in a separate larger and more easily seen frame (much encouraged). 

In this video, Attorney Donohew discusses a Washington Post investigative report about "fall assist" 911 calls from assisted living and other institutional care providers, and the prevalence of "No-lift" policies. 

The Washington Post article is entitled "Senior homes refuse to pick up fallen residents, dial 911. ‘Why are they calling us?,"  which came to Attorney Donohew's attention as a result of an article published by Rebecca C. Morgan, entitled,  "What Services are Provided by ALFs?" 

'

According to  the Washington Post, 

"[l]ift-assist 911 calls from assisted living and other senior homes have spiked by 30 percent nationwide in recent years to nearly 42,000 calls a year...That’s nearly three times faster than the increase in overall 911 call volume during the same 2019-2022 period, the data shows." 

The article notes this practice is particularly prevalent in Illinois, and why the increasing number of calls is causing controversy.