Standing as a health surrogate doesn’t allow appointees to enter into nursing home arbitration agreements or other business agreements with providers, a Florida appeals court has ruled.
At issue was a nursing home attempting to force claims by a deceased resident’s estate into arbitration since one of the healthcare surrogates had signed an arbitration agreement during admission of the resident.
In making it’s ruling, the court stated:
“The heart of this case is whether a document that designates a healthcare surrogate is broad enough to allow that surrogate to consent to an arbitration provision in a nursing home admission form,” wrote Judge Robert Gross. “We hold that the narrow focus of the document is on the surrogates’ power to make healthcare decisions, not business choices concerning dispute resolution.”
In a case that stresses the importance of keeping accurate records, especially for paid family caregivers, a New Jersey appeals court upheld a penalty period imposed by Medicaid against a Medicaid applicant for payments the applicant’s daughter received for providing caregiving service. E.B. v. Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services (N.J. Super. Ct., App. Div., No. A-3087-15T4, July 13, 2018).
The daughter [J.W.] testified that, in 2003, her then eighty-year old mother moved into her home. There was an area of J.W.’s home which, although physically attached to the house, was a separate unit where her mother lived. Her mother moved into the apartment because she was afraid of living by herself and was unable to shop or cook for herself.
In 2009, J.W. resigned from her job in order to care for her mother full time. In addition to providing supervision, J.W. assisted her mother with the activities of daily living. In 2011, J.W. was finding it too difficult to make ends meet because she was not earning income. She determined she either had to return to work and let a third party care for her mother during the day, or pay herself from her mother’s savings to compensate her for providing companion services. She chose the latter solution.
After some adjustments, Medicaid determined that $69,211.90 paid from the mother’s funds in order to pay for companion services was not for fair value, and imposed a penalty period. [Normally, the length of the penalty period is determined by the disallowed transfer – $69,211.90 – divided by the average monthly cost of nursing case in the area in which the applicant lives. For example, if the average cost of care in her area was $6,000 per month, then the penalty period would last for roughly one year.]
In making its determination, Medicaid found that the “proof of services rendered on a daily basis to the petitioner deficient”. There were no log sheets or like records tracking the hours she worked and the duties she performed. Second, it found the hourly rate paid to J.W. was not substantiated as appropriate for companion services. Third, J.W. began receiving wages when it was “foreseeable that advanced age and deteriorating condition would require intensive care and the possibility of entering a nursing care facility.” Finally, he observed there was no pre-existing written agreement between the mother and J.W. to pay for the subject services.
In denying her appeal, the Superior Court of Appeals in New Jersey stated:
We understand J.W.’s reasoning, specifically, that if she had to return to work, petitioner may as well pay her rather than a third party to provide companion services, especially because J.W. is a family member and would have her best interests in mind. Nevertheless, “a transfer of assets to a friend or relative for the alleged purpose of compensating for care or services provided free in the past shall be presumed to have been transferred for no compensation.” N.J.A.C. 10:71- 4.10(b)(6)ii.
Family caregivers should take note and adopt written care agreements, and keep time and task logs to guard against similar penalty impositions. Above all, seek the advice of a qualified Medicaid attorney in the state the applicant lives in to help navigate the complex process of applying for Medicaid.
In a case that speaks of the importance of choosing a qualified trustee who has proper internal controls and procedures, and who is governed by an appropriate regulatory body, The Ohio Supreme Court suspends two attorneys for one year after they negligently managed an elderly woman’s affairs. Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Zoller and Mamone (Ohio, No. 2014-1389, Nov. 8, 2016).
The client, a widow of a former mayor of Cleveland and a former justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio, retained the law firm to administer the estate of her late husband. Having come to increasingly rely on the partners in the firm, the client later engaged the firm to manage her money, to pay her bills, and to handle other aspects of her financial and personal life. The client sought to be able to live independently in her own home, to afford around-the-clock care, and to make generous gifts to her family members and charitable causes.
In it’s findings, the court stated:
[The Respondents] assumed the responsibilities of operating and maintaining the special account when they opened the account and agreed to be authorized signatories. But they failed to ensure that the account was a separate, interest-bearing trust account for [Client’s] benefit during the six-year period in which substantial client assets passed through it. They also failed to maintain even a modicum of oversight over the account by failing to accurately record each transaction that affected the account and failing to reconcile the account against the monthly statements issued by the bank. Their abdication of these most basic duties to [client] resulted in more than 30 overdrafts of the account and $1,000 in associated bank fees. Respondents’ failures to act also facilitated the misconduct of their father, [name removed], who not only wrote and signed checks on the special account (even though he was not an authorized signatory) but who also collected excessive and undocumented legal fees from [client]—fees that averaged approximately $55,000 each year for six years, though more than $250,000 of those fees was actually collected in just the first two years of the representation.
An Indiana Court of Appeals opinion underscores the importance of accountings in trust administration, but also raises questions about why families place siblings in adversarial positions to begin with.
According to an article posted by the Indianapolis law firm of Faebre Baker Daniels, the original case involved three siblings, Scott, Jeff and Stacey – and arose after Scott and Jeff began to question some of Stacey’s actions as trustee of their respective trusts – specifically, her handling of the trusts’ joint ownership of multiple parcels of real property. Shortly after the siblings executed a mediated settlement agreement and partitioned the properties, Scott sued Stacey, as trustee of his trust, alleging she failed to provide an accounting and had misused trust assets. Scott also alleged misappropriation of $107,000 of trust assets, which were characterized as trust expenses – which were in fact legal fees Stacey had incurred “years before the most recent trust-related litigation,” apparently with other family members.
One of the duties of a trustee (known as fiduciary duties) is to keep trust property separate and to maintain – and make available to trust beneficiaries – adequate records, which Stacey admitted she had failed to do. Unfortunately for Scott, he did not bring his complaint until after the two-year statute of limitations had expired, and the trial court found Stacey did not commit a breach of trust as to the accountings.
Scott also demanded reimbursement for his attorney’s fees for bringing the complaint against Stacey, which after being denied by the trial court was reversed by the Indiana Court of Appeals and Stacey was ordered to pay Scott’s legal fees.
While the crux of the case deals with a trustee’s responsibility to maintain adequate records and provide them to a trust’s beneficiaries, the real story in this case is the human one – that of a family of siblings now divided – at least partly – because one was put into an adversarial position with the others. I wonder if the trustee fee savings was worth it?
In the Matter of DREXEL ANDREW BRADSHAW, Attorney Drexel Andrew Bradshaw was charged with five counts of misconduct related to his position as the successor trustee of a client’s trust and his involvement with a construction company that repaired the client’s home. The case demonstrates the liability exposure that fiduciaries have and the extent to which they have to defend their actions, even if those actions were appropriate and in good faith.
To summarize, Bradshaw became the court-appointed conservator and trustee of a trust for an elderly client ruled incapable of managing her financial affairs. The client lived in an older home in San Francisco that needed significant repairs for the client’s living ability and care. Bradshaw hired a construction company that he had helped the owner of the company start by providing legal services and initial funding loans. To pay for the repairs, Bradshaw petitioned the court to allow him to obtain a reverse mortgage (followed by a 2nd one two years later).
The [California] Office of Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar (OCTC) charged Bradshaw with four counts related to his handling of the trust:
engaging in a scheme to defraud the trust,
breaching his fiduciary duties to his client and the trust beneficiaries,
misappropriation of trust funds, and
making several misrepresentations to the probate court and other government agencies.
The hearing judge found Bradshaw culpable of three of the charges (with the exception of misappropriation) and recommended that he be disbarred. Both Bradshaw and the OCTC appealed.
The appeals court found in Bradshaw’s favor and dismissed the case for “lack of clear and convincing proof.” In its ruling the appeals court stated:
Upon our independent review of the record (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.12), we do not find clear and convincing evidence to support culpability as to the charged misconduct. We reject OCTC’s premise that Bradshaw wanted to start a construction company and used his position as trustee to start his “corrupt” enterprise. Bradshaw served as the successor trustee for a client years after his firm drafted the client’s trust and estate plan, and only after the first two successor trustees were unable to serve. He managed the trust according to its stated purposes and terms in a reasonable and proper manner, including engaging a certified specialist in probate and trust law to assist him in his duties. Further, he adhered to his client’s clearly expressed desires to be cared for in her San Francisco home, and that the equity in the home be used to accomplish that goal. To that end, Bradshaw used the trust assets, which consisted mostly of the home’s $1.6 million equity, to provide his client with quality nursing care and for necessary repairs to ensure her safety in the home…
Unbeknownst to most Americans, more than half of U.S. states (29 plus Puerto Rico) have “filial responsibility” laws in effect that could potentially obligate adult children to support their impoverished parents. That includes paying the tab for basic necessities like food, housing, clothing, and medical attention, according to Little.
Turns out however that even states with such laws rarely enforce them, mainly because they weren’t needed after Medicaid became available, but also because federal laws enacted in 2016 prohibit nursing homes from requiring payment from third parties. In most states, for a child to be held accountable for a parent’s bill, all of these things would have to be true:
The parent received care in a state that has a filial responsibility law.
The parent did not qualify for Medicaid when receiving care.
The parent does not have the money to pay the bill.
The child has the money to pay the bill.
The caregiver chooses to sue the child.
Nevertheless, as the cost of long term care stresses the funding limits of Medicaid, and with Medicaid planning used as an asset preservation strategy of those with significant assets, don’t be surprised if public opinion influences legislation that shifts more of the cost burden on the family and away from the government.
Wealth and Honor is a website dedicated to helping families navigate the financial challenges of age transitions. The site now has a YouTube Channel to host “edutainment” videos featuring non-legal commentary on actual court cases involving will disputes, elder financial abuse, estate litigation, fiduciary liability, and other issues of aging, death, and wealth.
Court transcripts are condensed into a factual summary with popular sitcom characters providing faces to the actual characters of the case, followed by a non-legal commentary of lessons to learn and missteps to avoid.
https://youtu.be/6gBLpiWQX9c
The Case Files Trailer
The first episode covers the case of Lintz vs Lintz, a 2014 case decided in the California Appeals Court, that includes claims of breach of fiduciary duty, elder financial abuse, undue influence, among other claims. Viewers are encouraged to first watch a presentation of commonly used terms before watching the case episodes.
For a full text of the court transcript, click here.
If there’s anything that will bring a bipartisan group of U.S. senators together, it’s the topic of abuse in nursing homes and a hearing Tuesday was proof yet again.Abuse deficiencies cited in nursing homes more than doubled in four years, increasing from 430 in 2013 to 875 in 2017, a Government Accountability Office report released Tuesday found. The most common physical and verbal abuse was by staff, at 58%, investigators said.
Kaitlyn C. Meeks recently published a Comment entitled, Losing Your Mind, Losing Your Rights?: A Certification Process to Safeguard Alzheimer’s Patients and the Moving Target of the Lucid Interval, 44 U. Dayton L. Rev. 79-109 (2018). Provided below is an introduction to the Comment. For the rest of the comment, see: Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof Blog
Picture this: you have awakened, on a seemingly normal day, to a drastic lifestyle change — the care of your mother or father. You, the child, have now become the parent. Why has this happened? One, or perhaps both, of your parents was recently diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease (“AD”), rendering him or her incapable, in the eyes of the law, of maintaining complete and autonomous control over their life. The child is now the sole caretaker for the parent’s health, safety, finances, well-being, and legacy. As the new primary caretaker for an ailing parent, your life has become overwhelmed with legalities — Power of Attorney Forms, Health Care Directives, and Living Wills and Trusts. These stresses are in addition to the emotional effects as well as the financial and physical demands a caregiver is confronted with on a day-to-day basis.
Thanks to Gerry W. Beyer, Texas Tech Univ. School of Law for sharing.
Many adult children of aging parents find it difficult to talk to their parents about their finances. It is no wonder that these same adult children find it difficult to discuss their own wealth with their grown children.
Parents would be remiss if they did not talk to their children about drinking and driving, using drugs and, of course, sex. Some go even further, discussing subjects like bullying and mental health.
So why do a significant number of parents still not talk to their children about wealth and inheritance?
