Tenant's Estate Sues Landlord for Buyout Payment- Contracts and Agreements Are Assets

Estate planning is a discipline that requires periodic consideration and reconsideration of your circumstances as they change. When the estate plan involves a trust or other entity, contracts and agreements that are assets of your estate, should work within the estate plan.  Oil and gas leases, land installment contracts, rental agreements, installment sales, notes, security interests that you take in other's property, and the like, should be crafted in order to ensure that these assets remain viable assets of your estate after your death, and are marshaled and disposed in accordance with your wishes.  Sometimes, this is a simple task of assigning or conveying the rights to your trust, company, or other entity. These are too often overlooked, though, leading to unnecessary loss, risk, and legal dispute.  

A recent example resulted in a New York City landlord and the estate of one of the landlord's tenants fighting over whether the landlord is required to continue paying on a buyout of the tenant now that the tenant is deceased.

Walter Blomeyer, a black-cab driver, lived for decades in a single-room apartment in a building owned by Icon Realty Management, according to a recent article in the New York Post.  When Icon decided to convert the building into luxury condominiums, it offered to pay Mr. Blomeyer $525,000 to  induce him to move. Mr. Blomeyer accepted the deal, which required Icon to pay Mr. Blomeyer an initial sum of $300,000, allow him to live rent-free in another one of their buildings for a year, and make a final $225,000 payment.

Unfortunately, Mr. Blomeyer died in February of a heart attack before the final payment was made.  Icon has refused to make the payment to Mr. Blomeyer's estate. Mr. Blomeyer's estate was forced to file suit against Icon for $225,000. According to the Post, Icon's attorney argues it doesn't have to pay the estate because there was nothing in the agreement about the estate benefiting from the agreement.  "His estate is entitled to nothing," the lawyer said.

If the agreement had been reviewed by the estate planning attorney prior to execution, the agreement could have been easily modified to remove any doubt that the obligation was owed to Mr. Blomeyer, "his heirs and/or assigns" and that payments could be made to him, "his estate, his personal representative, or the trustee of his trust." Simple language, and as my niece would say, "mischief managed."

For the article about this case from the New York Post, click here. 

Husband Charged with Raping His Wife- Nursing Home Aids Claim Dementia Made Consent Impossible

Henry Rayhons, is accused of having sexual relations with his wife at a nursing home when she was unable to give consent due to Alzheimer's disease. He's charged with one count of felony sexual abuse.

 Donna Lou Rayhons’ dementia advanced so quickly in the months before her death she couldn't recall how to eat, thought her mashed potatoes were eggs and couldn't make decisions on her own, care center workers testified.  Prosecutors say Henry Rayhons had sexual relations with his wife on May 23, 2014, in her room at the care center. Prosecutors say he was told earlier that month that his wife was no longer able to consent to sex.

Donna Lou Rayhons died in August. Henry Rayhons was arrested five days later.

A 14-member jury, eight women and six men, heard testimony from Barrick and other staff who worked at the care center, Garner police and Dr. John Brady of Garner Medical Clinic. Prosecutors spent much of the day asking the care center workers and doctor about Donna Lou Rayhon's condition and her husband's behavior in the weeks leading up to the alleged incident.

Charge nurse Shari Dakin testified she didn't see Donna Lou Rayhons make a single decision on her own without help in the months she lived in the care facility in Garner.

"You could see that Donna had Alzheimer's — she was not like you and I," Dakin said. "She was just in her pleasant little world, her own little world."

Barrick told the jury that Henry Rayhons was upset when told he could no longer take his wife out of the care center as he had in the past.  She said he took Donna Rayhons to a doctor, after telling staff they were going for breakfast, in a bid to get overnight visits reinstated.

The doctor, John Brady, told jurors Henry Rayhons made an unsolicited comment while in the exam room with his wife.  "Mr. Rayhons expressed his frustration with not being able to take Donna outside the facility as they had been doing previously," said Brady, of Garner Medical Clinic. "He made an unsolicited comment about his frustration with the family, but saying it's not like I'm going to take her out for sex or anything."

Jurors were shown surveillance footage of Henry Rayhons walking to and from his wife's room on May 23. On the way out, he drops an item in a laundry cart.  Witnesses said it was a pair of Donna Rayhons' underwear. Police collected the undergarments as evidence. Sheets, a blanket and Donna Rayhons' comforter also were taken for testing.

Henry Rayhons' attorney, Joel Yunek, questioned how often laundry was done. He also pointed out Donna Lou Rayhons' roommate, who reported the alleged incident, never explicitly said she heard the Rayhons having sex.

He said it may have been what care center workers thought she implied, but not what she actually said. In his opening statement, Yunek said there's no physical evidence his client had sex with his wife on May 23, as prosecutors contend.

Yunek asked several witnesses whether anyone ever saw Donna Rayhons act afraid of her husband, or show any signs he was mistreating her.  Apparently no one testified that she complained, and no one reported any signs he was mistreating his wife. Though often "pleasantly confused," Donna Rayhons spoke warmly of her husband, Concord Care Center employee Brittany Bouslaugh reportedly said Monday.  "She said 'He takes me out and he buys me these beautiful things and beautiful jewelry'," Bouslaugh said. "And, she was just very, very happy."

Defense lawyer Joel Yunek contended in his opening statement that Henry Rayhons had lost a "power struggle" with two of his stepdaughters, which led to his wife being placed in a nursing home against his will last March. One of the step-daughters petitioned for, and received appointment as a guardian for her mom.  After the felony charge was filed last August, Henry Rayhons' supporters suggested the prosecution was sparked by bad feelings between him and two of his stepdaughters.

According to the New York Times, "it is rare, possibly unprecedented, for such circumstances to prompt criminal charges. Mr. Rayhons, a nine-term Republican state legislator, decided not to seek another term after his arrest."

For more on this case, click here, here, here, and here. 

"Extra Help" Aids People With Limited Incomes Pay for Medicare Prescription Drug Coverage

Extra Help is a federal program that helps people with limited incomes to pay the costs associated with Medicare prescription drug coverage (Medicare Part D). Extra Help is administered by the Social Security Administration. To qualify, you must meet income and asset guidelines that are determined by the federal government each year. If you are single in 2015, your monthly income must be below $1,471 ($1,991 for couples), and your assets must be up to $13,640 ($27,250 for couples) in order to qualify for Extra Help.

In order to have Extra Help, you must get your prescription drug coverage through Medicare Part D. You can get this coverage through both a stand-alone Part D plan that works with Original Medicare, or through a Medicare Advantage plan that includes prescription drug coverage. Extra Help does not work with other forms of prescription drug coverage, such as coverage from an employer. If you do not have a Part D plan, Extra Help gives you a Special Enrollment Period to enroll in a Part D plan outside of typical enrollment periods.

Depending on your income and assets, you may qualify for either full or partial Extra Help. With either program, you don't pay the full cost of your drugs on your plan’s formulary (the list of covered drugs) that you buy at a pharmacy in your plan’s network. You also can use a mail-order pharmacy with Extra Help. Extra Help can also assist with your monthly Part D premium and annual deductibles.

You can apply online, through the Social Security Administration by calling the National Hotline at 800-772-1213, or by visiting your local Social Security office. 

Extra Help is automatically provided to anyone who has a Medicare Savings Program, receives Supplemental Security Income (SSI), or has Medicaid.  

If you do not qualify for Extra Help, your state may have a State Pharmaceutical Assistance Program (SPAP) that can assist with prescription drug costs. Eligibility requirements and program benefits may vary, depending on the program. Contact your local State Health Insurance Assistance Program (SHIP) to see if there is one available in your state. To find your SHIP, visit www.shiptacenter.org or call 877-839-2675.

Click here or here to read more about Extra Help and to learn about whether you may qualify for Extra Help. Click here to learn about other programs and ways that can help lower your prescription drug costs.

Cleveland Attorney Accused of Stealing $115,000 from Estate

An 84-year-old Cleveland attorney is accused of stealing $115,000 from the estate of a client, and using the money to pay his bills.

Gerald Cooper is charged in federal court with wire fraud for stealing from the estate of Henry Luke. He used the money to pay credit card bills, sports tickets and mortgage payments, among others, prosecutors allege.

The charges were filed Tuesday in an information, which usually means a guilty plea is forthcoming.

Cooper, a Pepper Pike resident, was admitted to practice law in Ohio in 1957. The Supreme Court of Ohio's website lists him as retired.Gordon Friedman, Cooper's attorney, told a local paper that his client is working toward paying all of the money back.

"He has had an outstanding and remarkable career as a lawyer," Friedman said. "It is unfortunate that this final moment of his practice is kind of a dark mark on his reputation." According to the information:  Cooper filed an application to administer Luke's estate in Cuyahoga County Probate Court. Between February and March 2014, he received $138,397 from three of Luke's bank accounts.

Cooper then took $115,000 from the estate between February to October 2014 by writing a series of checks. The money then went into his personal account.

You can read the entire article here.

Nursing Home Resident Not Entitled to Hearing on Readmission After Hospitalization

Nursing homes have almost unlimited authority to refuse to readmit a resident following a hospitalization.  This was demonstrated  recently in an Illinois appeals court case which ruled that a nursing home resident who entered a hospital while waiting for a hearing on an involuntary discharge, was not entitled to a hearing when the nursing home refused to readmit him. Gruby v. Department of Public Health (Ill. Ct. App., 2nd Dist, No. 14-MR-0354, March 26, 2015).

Marvin Gruby was a resident of Manorcare Highland Park nursing home. The nursing home issued him a discharge notice, claiming that Mr. Gruby threatened the safety of individuals in the nursing home. Mr. Gruby requested a hearing as was his right under state law. Before the hearing could take place, however, Mr. Gruby entered the hospital for a scheduled procedure. The nursing home notified Mr. Gruby that he would not be able to return to the facility after his hospitalization and it withdrew the notice of discharge.

Mr. Gruby argued that he was entitled to a hearing on the discharge. The administrative law judge determined that a hearing was no longer necessary and closed the case. Mr. Gruby appealed to court. The court ruled that the controversy became moot when the nursing home withdrew the notice of discharge. Mr. Gruby appealed, arguing that he was still a resident of the nursing home while he was in the hospital. Under federal regulations, if a nursing home resident enters a hospital for 10 days or less, the nursing home may not refuse to readmit the resident on the basis of his or her Medicaid status.

The Illinois Court of Appeals affirmed the administrative law judge's decision, holding that under federal nursing home law, Mr. Gruby is not entitled to a hearing for being denied readmission to the nursing home. According to the court, Mr. Gruby did not remain a resident of the nursing home once he was admitted to the hospital because the 10-day bed hold requirement applies only to the Medicaid provisions. The court rules that when the nursing home withdrew its notice of discharge, there was no longer a need for a hearing. The nursing home, in effect, is permitted to circumvent the resident's rights by simply refusing readmission of the the resident, so long as the refusal is not because of the resident's Medicaid status.  

For the full text of this decision, click here. 

Life Estate Renders Medicaid Applicant Ineligible

Life estates are frequently used by seniors to gift real property to family members because the seniors are assured that the retained life estate secures their use and enjoyment of the property for the remainder of  their life.  These estates, however, present complicated tax and legal issues rarely considered and resolved prior to the gift.  

Life estates often complicate Medicaid eligibility.  See, for example, my prior article, "Entire Value of Property in Which Medicaid Recipient Had Life Estate is Recoverable in Idaho."    In a more recent example, North Dakota's highest court ruled that a Medicaid applicant who had a life estate in property is entitled to the income generated from that property, even though she argued she permanently gifted the income to her son. Bleick v. North Dakota Dept. of Human Services (N.D., No. 20140103, March 24, 2015).

Shirley Bleick transferred property to her son in 1988, reserving a life estate for herself, and then she moved off the property.  In 1992, her son leased a portion of the property to another farmer for $8,200 a year. The rental income went to Ms. Bleick's son. In 2011, Ms. Bleick applied for Medicaid benefits, but the application was denied. The state determined that Ms. Bleick should be receiving a portion of the rental income, so her countable assets exceeded the maximum limit.

Ms. Bleick appealed the state's decision, arguing she gifted the right to the income to her son. The trial court affirmed the state's decision to deny Medicaid benefits, and Ms. Bleick appealed.

The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the income stream from the life estate exceeds the asset limits for Medicaid benefits. According to the court, if Ms. Bleick intended to gift all the income from the property to her son, she could have released the life estate and transferred title to the property. The court ruled that the rental income, if it is viewed as a gift, is an annual gift. One justice dissented, arguing that all the evidence indicates that Ms. Bleick intended to permanently gift the income to her son.

The lesson could not be more clear: consult with an elder law attorney before making gifts in order assure that the consequences of the transaction are fully understood and considered. For more information, see "Six Questions to Ask Before Making Gifts."    

For the full text of this decision, go to: 

http://www.ndcourts.gov/court/opinions/20140103.htm

NAELA Says the VA Could Be Sued If Proposed Transfer Regs Are Enacted

In its response to the Department of Veterans Affairs’ proposed regulations that would establish a look-back period and asset transfer penalties for pension claimants, the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys’ (NAELA) raises the prospect that the VA could be sued if the rules take effect.  

As previously reported, proposed Section § 3.276 would establish a 36-month look-back period and a penalty period of up to 10 years for those who dispose of assets to qualify for a VA pension. Currently, there is no prohibition on transferring assets prior to applying for needs-based benefits, such as Aid and Attendance. 

“[W]e express the serious concern that the proposed rule’s 3-year look-back period and transfer of assets penalty exceed statutory authority, opening up VA to future litigation and causing additional uncertainty for Veterans and their families,” write Bradley J. Frigon, NAELA’s president, and Victoria Collier, Chair of NAELA’s VA Task Force, in March 17, 2015, comments on the proposed rules.

Frigon and Collier argue that the proposed rules do not meet the standard of either an explicit or implicit delegation by congressional statute that the U.S. Supreme Court set forth in Chevron USA, Inc. v. NRDC, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).  They point out that Congress had the opportunity from 2012 to 2014 to create Medicaid-like transfer rules but that each proposal died in session.

NAELA’s comments also maintain that the proposed transfer penalties exception is too narrow.  “Veterans and their surviving spouses will be unjustly penalized for prior transfers that had absolutely nothing to do with VA pension eligibility," Frigon and Collier write. “Gifts to children at holidays and birthdays will be penalized. Donations to places of worship will be penalized. Contributions to charities will be penalized. All because there is a presumption that the transfer was made for the purpose of qualifying for VA pension. . . . The final rule should require that transfers only made for the sole purpose of qualifying for VA pension be penalized.”

The 27-page comments highlight a number of other flaws in the proposed regulation, including that it should allow for partial cures, that the time allowed to cure transfers should be expanded, that the rule disproportionately harms surviving spouses of veterans, and that the proposed net worth limits are harsher than Medicaid’s limits.

Alimony Obligation May Require Involuntary VA Admission

Victor Rizzolo and Barbara Jones divorced when Mr. Rizzolo was 84 years old. The court ordered Mr. Rizzolo to pay Ms. Jones alimony. Five years later, Mr. Rizzolo's health began to fail, so he moved in with son, who hired a caregiver for him.

Mr. Rizzolo asked the court to end the alimony payments, arguing that his income -- which was limited to VA disability payments and Social Security -- was needed to pay the caregiver. The trial court ruled against Mr. Rizzolo, finding that he had not done all that he could to meet his alimony obligations; if he entered a VA facility, the court found that he would be able to receive care and pay the alimony.  Because the court did not end the alimony obligation, Mr. Rizzolo appealed.  Perhaps he wishes he had not appealed, because, although the appeals court ruled in his favor, the court remanded the case describing an ominous potential outcome- his involuntary institutionalization in order to preserve his income for payment of alimony. 

The New Jersery Superior Court, Appellate Division, reversed, holding that the trial court did not hear evidence about whether entering a VA facility was really appropriate. According to the court, "although the [trial] court may on remand conclude that it is equitable to require [Mr. Rizzolo] to enter a VA facility against his wishes in order to use his limited income to continue to pay alimony, allowing [Ms. Jones] to preserve her assets until [Mr. Rizzolo's] death makes alimony no longer available, it may only do so upon consideration of competent evidence and a qualitative analysis of both parties' circumstances."

The court ruled that the trial court must first consider all the evidence before it can order an 89-year-old veteran in failing health to enter a Veteran's Administration (VA) facility against his will in order to ensure he had enough assets to pay alimony. Sometimes one can only exclaim, "wow!"  See, Rizzolo v. Jones (N.J. Super. Ct., App. Div., No. A-1800-13T2, March 2, 2015).  

Hopefully, his son will seek to introduce evidence regarding the relative quality of care available at home versus that available in an institution, and the court will consider carefully his quality of life concerns vis-a-vis his financial obligations. See, for example my articles, "One-Third of Nursing Home Residents Harmed In Treatment," Hapatitis Infection Risk in Nursing Homes Up 50%; Infection Risk Across the Board Increases, and "Most Terminal Dementia Patients in Nursing Homes Given Pointless and Potentially Dangerous Drugs"

For the full text of this decision, go to:
http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/courts/appellate/a1800-13.opn.html

White House Proposes New Rules to Protect Investors Saving for Retirement

You might think that the top priority of the broker or financial adviser managing your retirement funds is to maximize your returns, but that’s not always the case.  Some steer their clients to bad retirement investments with high fees and low returns because they get higher commissions or other incentives to do so.  And there’s nothing currently in the law that requires advisers to put their clients’ interests first.

The Obama Administration has proposed new rules to change this and require financial advisers to act in the best interests of their clients. The move is designed to increase the amount investors receive in retirement.

Americans may lose as much as $17 billion every year because of bad financial advice from advisors with conflicts of interest, according to a report by the President's Council of Economic Advisors. Many financial advisors have a sales incentive to steer clients into investments that offer higher payments to the advisor but are not necessarily the best option for the client. According to the report, a retiree getting advice from an advisor with a conflict of interest when rolling over a 401(k) balance at retirement can lose an estimated 12 percent of the value of his or her savings.

To confront this problem, President Obama has directed the Department of Labor to promulgate new rules that require financial advisors to act like fiduciaries. This means they must put their clients' interests above their own. The new rules would prevent brokers and financial advisers from rolling over retirement accounts unnecessarily or putting clients' savings into investments with high fees and low returns when there are better options.

The Department of Labor will publish the new rules and then hold a hearing on the rules and accept public comments. The financial industry is fighting the proposed rules, arguing that they will disadvantage small savers by increasing costs. 

“What they are saying,” says business columnist Darrell Delamaide writing in USA Today, “is that they are currently willing to offer their services to the low-income bracket because they will reap even higher profit from hidden costs and fees. Their opposition to the rule is virtually proof that it is necessary.”

For more information about the new rules, click here and here. 

To read the report from the Council of Economic Advisors, click here. 

Retiring Abroad with a Long-Term Care Insurance Policy

As more people consider retiring abroad, questions arise regarding how an overseas retirement will affect long-term care insurance benefits. If you are planning to relocate out of the country and want to purchase or already have long-term care insurance, the first and best advice is to read carefully the fine print on your policy.

Not all long-term care insurance policies cover care in other countries.  Even if care is covered, the benefits are often severely limited. Some companies pay benefits overseas, but the benefit is less than the amount an insured getting care in the U.S. receives. For example, one insurer pays up to 50 percent of the nursing home benefit purchased for care received outside the United States. Other companies provide  a full benefit amount, but for a limited time (for example, one year).  Once you reach the limit, you will be required to move back to the U.S. to continue your remaining coverage. Still other companies limit both the benefit and the time covered, or they may cover you only if you relocate to an English-speaking country.

To find out whether your policy covers long-term care in other countries, first look at the exclusions. Next look for a section called "international benefits" or "out of country coverage." If your policy does limit care overseas, you should not cancel it immediately because it can be hard to get coverage again. Talk to your insurance agent, attorney or financial advisor first. Instead of cancelling, it may make sense to lower your premium by reducing your benefits.

For more information on what to consider before moving to another country, click here. 

For more about long-term care insurance, click here.

Scientists have found that non-invasive ultrasound technology can be used to treat Alzheimer's disease and restore memory. Researchers discovered that the innovative drug-free approach breaks apart the neurotoxic amyloid plaques that result in memory loss and cognitive decline.  The Report was published  in Science Translational Medicine,  Vol. 7, Issue 278, pp. 278ra33 (March 11,  2015), and reported in Science Daily.

Art Collector's Estate Claims Attorney's Drafting Error Cost It $25 Million

The estate of a prominent art collector has sued the attorney who drafted the art collector's will for legal malpractice. The lawsuit, filed in the New York Supreme Court, claims the attorney's error will cost the estate $25 million in taxes.

Collector Robert Ellsworth, whom The New York Times once called “the king of Ming” for his renowned collection of Asian art, hired attorney George Bischof to draft his will. In 2010, Bischof drafted a will that left Ellsworth's estate outright to his friend, Masahiro Hashiguchi, with six charities as contingent beneficiaries. In 2013, Ellsworth changed his will to name Bischof as the sole trustee of a residuary trust. Under the new will, the residue of the estate was left to a discretionary trust that benefited Hashiguchi during his life and then the remainder of the trust was left to charity.

The lawsuit alleges that Bischof drafted the will in a manner that did not allow the trust to qualify as a charitable remainder trust and therefore meet the criteria for the federal estate tax charitable deduction. According to the lawsuit, because of the "negligently and carelessly" drafted trust, the estate will have to pay $25 million in estate taxes that it wouldn't have had to pay if the trust had been properly drafted.

For more about this case from artnet, click here. 

Some Senior Living Facilities Discriminating on the Basis of Disability

Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRCs) sound like a great idea, and in many ways they are.  They offer residents access to the entire residential continuum -- from independent housing to assisted living to round-the-clock nursing services -- under one "roof."  Residents pay an entry fee and an adjustable monthly rent in return for the guarantee of care for the rest of their life.

But while the transition from one level of care to another may be advertised as seamless, anyone considering a CCRC should be aware that moving to a higher level of care could mean losing access to privileges and amenities they once enjoyed and took for granted.  Depending on its policies, a CCRC may mandate separate facilities and activities for those requiring different levels of care. Although such restrictions may be illegal, they are not uncommon.

For example, the New York Times recently reported on the case of Ann Clinton, a resident of a CCRC in Huntsville, Alabama, who found herself barred from her cherished bingo games when she moved to the facility’s nursing unit while rehabilitating after back surgery. 

Clinton and her husband moved to the CCRC in 2012, paying a deposit of $351,424, and about $4,600 a month in fees.  Mr. Clinton shifted to the assisted facility unit and then to the nursing unit, where he died in September 2014. Through it all, Ms. Clinton, 80, looked forward to her weekly bingo game with friends and other residents of the CCRC’s independent living unit.

After her back surgery, Ms. Clinton was still able to attend the games using her motorized scooter.  But to her shock and surprise, she was eventually barred from them because she was living in the nursing unit.  

This isn’t the first time the Times reported on such a policy. In 2011 it covered the controversy that erupted when a CCRC in Norfolk, Virginia, declared that a popular waterfront dining room was off-limits to those in the assisted living and nursing units, and could be used only by independent living residents.  Suddenly longtime friends and even some married couples could no longer eat together because they lived in separate parts of the facility.  After residents contacted a lawyer and the news media, the CCRC reversed its policy.

The same thing had happened to the Clintons, according to the Times.  After Mr. Clinton moved to the CCRC’s assisted living wing, he was denied admission to the main dining room to eat with his wife, who was still in the independent living section.  The facility eventually changed its policy, allowing assisted living residents to use the dining room if independent living residents invited them.  

The CCRC has since suspended the bingo game that Ms. Clinton was barred from attending.  Ms. Clinton’s son says he plans to file a lawsuit on his mother’s behalf and is looking for a lawyer.

Attorneys who advocate for the elderly believe that excluding residents based on the level of care they require violates anti-discrimination laws like the Fair Housing Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act.  Admittedly, CCRCs may be trying to segregate residents in the belief that some residents would prefer not to have contact with those who are more incapacitated. 

“But that’s why we have anti-discrimination laws,” Eric Carlson, an attorney with the National Senior Citizens Law Center, told the Times. “You don’t want to capitulate to people’s prejudices.”

For more about CCRCs, click here. 

For more about senior living options, click here.

Daughter Who Signed as Trustee Has Authority to Bind Mother to Nursing Home Agreement

A Kentucky appeals court recently held that a daughter who signed a nursing home's financial agreement in her capacity as trustee of her mother's irrevocable trust has authority to bind her mother to the agreement. King v. Butler Rest Home (Ky. Ct. App., No. 2012-CA-000789-MR, March 13, 2015).

When Geneva King entered a nursing home, her daughter, Diana Livengood, signed the financial agreement as trustee of Ms. King's trust. Ms. King initially paid privately for her care, but when she decided to apply for Medicaid, she stopped making payments to the nursing home. The state subsequently denied Ms. King's Medicaid application.

The nursing home sued Ms. King and Ms. Livengood in her representative capacity, seeking payment of the outstanding balance. Ms. Livengood responded that Ms. King hadn’t signed the contract and that Ms. Livengood did not have authority to bind her. The trial court granted summary judgment to the nursing home and ordered Ms. King and Ms. Livengood to pay $87,413.32. 

One of the important aspects of this decision is that Livengood seems to have been arguing that only the trust could be held responsible, and not her mother's larger non-trust estate. The court rejected the argument.

The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Ms. Livengood has the capacity to bind her mother to the financial agreement. The court notes that the signature line on the financial agreement that Ms. Livengood signed referred to the signer as the responsible party. According to the court, by signing the agreement in this way, "[Ms.] Livengood represented that she had the capacity to bind her mother. [The nursing home] admitted [Ms.] King in reliance upon this signature."

For the full text of this decision, click here. 

Groups Charge That New HUD Policy Gives Little Relief to Surviving Spouses of Reverse Mortgage Holders

Consumer advocacy groups are denouncing the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) latest attempt to protect the spouses of reverse mortgage holders from being forced out of their homes when the mortgage holder dies. 

HUD’s plan, outlined in Mortgagee Letter 2015-03, “will not protect surviving spouses from displacement and will lead to more foreclosures,” the National Consumer Law Center charges in comments on the new policy filed on behalf of its low-income clients and five other advocacy groups.

As I previously reported, couples often fail to put both spouses on the reverse mortgage loan, either because one spouse is under age 62 or they are urged to do so by aggressive lenders in order to get a bigger loan. Few couples are aware of the potentially catastrophic implications.  In the past, if only one spouse's name was on the mortgage and that spouse died, the surviving spouse would be required to either repay the loan in full or face eviction.  

In 2013 a U.S. district court ruled that in not protecting spouses from foreclosure, HUD was violating the reverse mortgage statute, and the court ordered that the agency find a way to shield surviving spouses from foreclosure and eviction.  In response, HUD began by issuing a new rule in 2014 to help protect spouses left off loans written after August 4 of that year.  But the rule did nothing for non-borrowing spouses on loans that had been written before that date.

Mortgagee Letter 2015-03, issued in January 2015, was aimed at this group.  Under the new policy, when the borrowing spouse dies reverse mortgage lenders have the option of assigning the loan to HUD, a move that would allow an eligible surviving spouse to remain in the home.  However, the consumer groups charge that HUD’s guidance is so unclear that most lenders will choose the safer alternative of foreclosure, and that even if lenders do opt for the assignment route, few surviving spouses will qualify for it.  This is because the spouses will have to come up with a large sum of money to quickly pay down the loan in order to pass a HUD-prescribed loan limit test, a feat that will prove “impossible for many newly widowed non-borrowing spouses.”

The National Consumer Law Center and the other groups recommend alternative options that they say will provide true relief to non-borrowing spouses facing foreclosure while protecting the integrity of the insurance funds.

To read the Center's comments on the new HUD policy, click here. 

Inherited IRA Not Part of New Jersey Resident's Bankruptcy Estate

A U.S. bankruptcy court determined recently that, at least under New Jersey law, an inherited IRA is not part of the bankruptcy estate, notwithstanding the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Clark v. Rameker. In re: Andolino, (Bankr. D. N.J., No. 13-17238, Feb. 25, 2015).

Christopher Andolino inherited an IRA worth $120,000 from his mother. He later filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, and claimed the IRA was an exempt asset.

The bankruptcy trustee objected to Mr. Andolino's bankruptcy plan, asserting that under the Supreme Court's decision in Clark v. Rameker (U.S., No. 13-299, June 13, 2014), inherited IRAs are property of the estate.  To read my previous article on the decision in Clark v. Rameker, click here.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of New Jersey, held that the inherited IRA is not property of the estate. According to the court, "whereas the inherited IRA at issue in Clark was determined to be an asset of the bankruptcy estate pursuant to nonbankruptcy law, i.e., Wisconsin law, this Court first must apply relevant New Jersey law to determine whether [Mr. Andolino's] inherited IRA is property of the bankruptcy estate." The court determined that under New Jersey law, an inherited IRA does not lose "qualified trust" status, so it is exempt from the bankruptcy estate under federal bankruptcy law.

For the full text of this decision, click here.

Early Onset Alzheimer's Information and Assistance from the ADEAR Center (Alzheimer’s Disease Education and Referral Center)

Early-onset Alzheimer's disease, occurring in people age 30 to 60, is rare but complicated. People living with early-onset Alzheimer’s (like Julianne Moore’s character in the movie “Still Alice”) may face particular challenges in dealing with work, raising children, and finding the right support groups.

A new online resource list from the National Institute on Aging’s Alzheimer’s Disease Education and Referral Center may assist younger people with Alzheimer’s, their families, and caregivers to find information and help. Topics include:

• Living with early-onset Alzheimer’s
• Legal and financial planning
• Caregiving
• Clinical trials and studies

All of the resources on this list are free and accessible online.

Visit the ADEAR Center website for other resources like free publications, caregiving resources, and more information about Alzheimer’s.

Share this resource via social media with the following message:

New resource list for people living w/ early-onset #Alzheimers & their #caregivers from @Alzheimers_NIH  http://1.usa.gov/1CiQi0Y

Proposed VA Regs Would Create Transfer Penalties for Pension Applicants

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is proposing regulations that would establish an asset limit, a look-back period and asset transfer penalties for claimants applying for VA needs-based benefits.  Currently, there is no prohibition on transferring assets prior to applying for needs-based benefits, such as Aid and Attendance. 

In its explanation of the new regulations in the January 23, 2015 Federal Register, the VA says the changes are a response to a 2012 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, which it states recommended changes to “to maintain the integrity of VA’s needs-based benefit programs.” The VA also offers as a reason for the new rules to “reduce opportunities for attorneys and financial advisors to take advantage of pension claimants.”

The proposed rules would establish a 36-month look-back period and a penalty period of up to 10 years for those who dispose of assets to qualify for a VA pension. The penalty period would be calculated based on the total assets transferred during the look-back period to the extent they would have exceeded a new net worth limit that the rules also establish.  The proposed net worth limit would be equal to Medicaid’s maximum community spouse resource allowance (CSRA) prevailing at the time the final rule is published and would be indexed for inflation as the CSRA is.

The amount of a claimant’s net worth would be determined by adding the claimant’s annual income to his or her assets. The VA would not consider a claimant’s primary residence, including a residential lot area not to exceed two acres, as an asset.  But if the residence is sold, proceeds from the sale would be assets unless used to purchase another residence within the calendar year of the sale. Any penalty period would begin the first day of the month that follows the last asset transfer, and the divisor would be the applicable maximum annual pension rate in effect as of the date of the pension claim.

The proposed rule also defines and clarifies what the VA considers to be a deductible medical expense for all of its needs-based benefits, and proposes statutory changes pertaining to pension beneficiaries who receive Medicaid-covered nursing home care.

The proposed rules appear to be an effort to circumvent Congress, where legislation similar to that proposed in the new regulations has been languishing for the past two years.

The proposed rules are also quite harsh when compared to the five year look-back used for Medicaid.  Although there is no explanation for the need for a longer look-back period, the fact that there is no resource recovery available to the VA may explain the longer period.  Of course, it is also possible that the government is signalling a willingness to use more strenuous measures in determining eligibility for government benefits generally, which may later translate to a similarly longer look-back for Medicaid purposes.  

Of course, more stringent regulation of eligibility may also serve the interest in the federal government seeing states enforce, and if necessary, adopt filial responsibility laws.  For more information, see my previous articles here, here, here, and here.

To read the proposed rules in 80 Federal Register 3840-3864 (23 Jan 2015), click here.  Comments must be received on or before March 24, 2015.

Value of Assets That Spouses of Medicaid Recipients May Keep Rises for 2015

Medicaid law provides special protections for the spouse of a Medicaid applicant to ensure the spouse has the minimum support needed to continue to live in the community while the the Medicaid recipient receives long-term care benefits, usually in a nursing home.

One of the most important protections is the "community spouse resource allowance" or CSRA. In order to be eligible for Medicaid benefits a nursing home resident may have no more than $2,000 in assets (the amount may be somewhat higher in some states). In general, the community spouse may keep one-half of the couple's total "countable"assets up to a maximum that changes each year. This is the “maximum CSRA,” the most that a state may allow a community spouse to retain without a hearing or a court order. The least that a state may allow a community spouse to retain is called the “minimum CSRA.”

The federal government just announced the new spousal impoverishment figures for 2015, which include the minimum and maximum CSRA:

• Minimum Community Spouse Resource Allowance: $23,844
• Maximum Community Spouse Resource Allowance: $119,220

Here's an example of how the CSRA might work:

If a couple has $100,000 in countable assets on the date the applicant enters a nursing home, he or she will be eligible for Medicaid once the couple's assets have been reduced to a combined figure of $52,000 -- $2,000 for the applicant and $50,000 for the community spouse.

Some states, however, are more generous toward the community spouse. In these states, the community spouse may keep up to $119,220 (in 2015), regardless of whether or not this represents half the couple's assets. For example, if the couple had $100,000 in countable assets, the community spouse could keep the entire amount, instead of being limited to half.

For more about the CSRA, click here.

For more about Medicaid's protections for the healthy spouse, click here.

For more about Medicaid's treatment of assets, including what is "non-countable," click here.