A New Jersey appeals court recently held that a life care contract between a nursing home resident and her daughter, in which the resident paid her daughter a lump sum for the future provision of personal care services, is not a transfer for fair market value for the purposes of Medicaid eligibility. E.S. v. Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services (N.J. Super. Ct., App. Div., No. A-2564-08T2, March 26, 2010).
E.S., age 97, was admitted to a nursing home. Her daughter, E.K., who held a durable power of attorney for her, entered into a life care contract on her behalf. Under the contract, E.S. would pay E.K. the lump sum of $56,550 for caregiving services to be rendered to E.S. The contract provided that E.K. would work on an as-needed basis over E.S.’s lifetime.
E.S. applied for Medicaid, but the state imposed a transfer penalty, finding that the life care contract was not a transfer for fair market value. The administrative law judge affirmed the state’s decision, and E.S. appealed.
The New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the life care contract was not a transfer for fair market value. The court found that because the contract was not assignable, it has no market value. The court also noted that because contract terms benefited only the caregiver, the contract exposed E.S. to unwarranted risks and is worthless on the open market.
The E.S. case is annexed here: E.S. v. Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services
(I previously blogged about the prior decisions in the E.S. case decided by the administrative law judge and Director of the Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services here.)
Categories
- Affordable Care Act
- Alzheimer's Disease
- Arbitration
- Attorney Ethics
- Attorneys Fees
- Beneficiary Designations
- Blog Roundup and Highlights
- Blogs and Blogging
- Care Facilities
- Caregivers
- Cemetery
- Collaborative Family Law
- Conservatorships
- Consumer Fraud
- Contempt
- Contracts
- Defamation
- Developmental Disabilities
- Discovery
- Discrimination Laws
- Doctrine of Probable Intent
- Domestic Violence
- Elder Abuse
- Elder Law
- Elective Share
- End-of-Life Decisions
- Estate Administration
- Estate Litigation
- Estate Planning
- Events
- Family Law
- Fiduciary
- Financial Exploitation of the Elderly
- Funeral
- Future of the Legal Profession
- Geriatric Care Managers
- Governmental or Public Benefit Programs
- Guardianship
- Health Issues
- Housing for the Elderly and Disabled
- In Remembrance
- Insolvent Estates
- Institutional Liens
- Insurance
- Interesting New Cases
- Intestacy
- Law Firm News
- Law Firm Videos
- Law Practice Management / Development
- Lawyers and Lawyering
- Legal Capacity or Competancy
- Legal Malpractice
- Legal Rights of the Disabled
- Liens
- Litigation
- Mediation
- Medicaid Appeals
- Medicaid Applications
- Medicaid Planning
- Annuities
- Care Contracts
- Divorce
- Estate Recovery
- Family Part Non-Dissolution Support Orders
- Gifts
- Life Estates
- Loan repayments
- MMMNA
- Promissory Notes
- Qualified Income Trusts
- Spousal Refusal
- Transfers For Reasons Other Than To Qualify For Medicaid
- Transfers to "Caregiver" Child(ren)
- Transfers to Disabled Adult Children
- Trusts
- Undue Hardship Provision
- Multiple-Party Deposit Account Act
- New Cases
- New Laws
- News Briefs
- Newsletters
- Non-Probate Assets
- Nursing Facility Litigation
- Personal Achievements and Awards
- Personal Injury Lawsuits
- Probate
- Punitive Damages
- Reconsideration
- Retirement Benefits
- Reverse Mortgages
- Section 8 Housing
- Settlement of Litigation
- Social Media
- Special Education
- Special Needs Planning
- Surrogate Decision-Making
- Taxation
- Technology
- Texting
- Top Ten
- Trials
- Trustees
- Uncategorized
- Veterans Benefits
- Web Sites and the Internet
- Webinar
- Writing Intended To Be A Will
Vanarelli & Li, LLC on Social Media