Entries by JBatsevitsky

TRUST (FAVORABLE)

Board of Hearings Appeal #1614874 (August 18, 2017). MassHealth denied an application for long-term care benefits on the grounds that the appellant’s assets exceeded program limits for eligibility. Assets included a home held in irrevocable trust. At hearing, MassHealth argued that a trust provision, giving the appellant the power to appoint trust property to any […]

TRUST (UNFAVORABLE)

Board of Hearings Appeal #1707091 (September 7, 2017). The appellant’s re-application for long-term care benefits was denied due to excess assets. At issue was whether assets held in an irrevocable realty trust were countable to the appellant. The appellant was the donor and co-trustee (along with his two children) of the irrevocable realty trust, and […]

TRUST (FAVORABLE)

Board of Hearings Appeal #1707285 (September 22, 2017). MassHealth denied an application for long-term care benefits on the grounds that the appellant’s assets exceeded program limits for eligibility. Assets included a home held in trust. The trust was established and funded by the appellant’s spouse, who was the settlor and the trustee. The spouse’s four […]

Ajemian v. Yahoo, Inc., SJC-12237 (2017)

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts concluded that Yahoo is permitted to divulge the contents of a decedent’s email account where the personal representatives lawfully consented to disclosure on the decedent’s behalf. The decedent died at age 43, leaving no will and no instructions regarding treatment of his Yahoo email account. The decedent’s siblings were […]

DISQUALIFYING TRANSFER (FAVORABLE)

Board of Hearings Appeal #1706494 (June 28, 2017). MassHealth imposed an ineligibility period on an applicant for long-term care benefits after determining that the applicant had made disqualifying transfers. The applicant had paid private companions a total of $11,872.83 for their services. MassHealth took the position that these services were duplicative because the applicant was […]

DISQUALIFYING TRANSFER (UNFAVORABLE)

Board of Hearings Appeal #1704604 (July 7, 2017). MassHealth imposed an ineligibility period on an applicant for long-term care benefits, on the grounds that the applicant had transferred funds to his adult daughter for less than fair market value. The applicant made four monetary transfers to his daughter in September, October and November of 2015 […]

Vincenza Jacques v. Marylou Sudders, Secretary of the Executive Office of Health and Human Services, Essex Superior Court, Docket #1677CV00748

The Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings was allowed, vacating a decision by the MassHealth Board of Hearings. The Board of Hearings had denied the Plaintiff’s eligibility for MassHealth long-term care benefits because the Plaintiff had transferred her primary residence to a trust for the benefit of her disabled niece. The hearing officer held […]

Daley v. Secretary of the Executive Office of Health and Human Services & another and Nadeau v. Director of the Office of Medicaid, 477 Mass. 188 (2017)

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that neither the right of use and occupancy in a primary residence deeded to an irrevocable trust, nor the retention of a life estate in a primary residence after deeding it to such a trust, makes the equity in the home a countable asset for purposes of eligibility […]

Skye v. Hession, 91 Mass. App. Ct. 423 (2017)

The grantor transferred her home to her children by quitclaim deed, reserving a special power of appointment. The grantor later exercised the special power of appointment to reduce one child’s interest in the property. The child sought a declaration that the power was invalid. The Probate and Family Court upheld its validity, and the Massachusetts […]

Roth v. Newpol, 91 Mass. App. Ct. 609 (2017)

The Massachusetts Appeals Court concluded that a testator’s disposition, in the residuary clause of her will, of “any monies remaining” in her estate did not include her one-half interest in real property that she held as tenants in common with her brother. Nothing in the language or context of the will supported a broader interpretation […]