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.