Subscribe to Our
Weekly Blog Reports

LWP Badge

September 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Become a Fan

« What Is A Successful Workshop? Here's All You Need to Know... | Main | How Do You Plan For Blended Families? »

08/22/2016

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Richard Winblad

Dave: Great article, it is unfortunate that such the drafting "style" of the attorney caused this result. That's why we pay attention to such details.

Louis Walker

"In this fact pattern, the court argued that, since it could be distributed to the children and there was no prohibition on the children to distribute it back to the grantor, the court could infer that there is a circumstance in which the grantor could benefit."

Under the logic this court applied, any asset of a child could be considered an asset available to the disabled parent. They were arguing that the child COULD give the money back to the parent or spend it to care for them. Any asset of the child is available under that logic. A very frightening fall back to the old state laws that required a family to pay for the care of any indigent that ended up in a state hospital. Many states actually still have those old laws on the books, although I don't believe any actually try to enforce them. It would be a shame if Medicaid started relying on those to find exclusions.

The comments to this entry are closed.