When an agent steps into the shoes of a principal, does that require the agent to ensure every cent belonging to the principal go towards the principal’s care? What if the agent instead gifts that money to family? Is that fraudulent? This issue was explored in a recent case out of the United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Massachusetts, Eastern Division.

Doris named her son, Jonathan, as agent under a financial power of attorney. Doris’ health was failing and she entered into a nursing home, Pleasant Bay. The private pay rate for Pleasant Bay was nearly $8,000 per month. Doris did not have enough income to pay for her stay at Pleasant Bay, so Jonathan sold her condominium.

Yesterday, you were alerted to the groundbreaking decision out of Minnesota that confirmed an irrevocable trust could be an exempt asset regarding Medicaid eligibility and struck down state law that contradicted federal law on the matter.

Now, let’s discuss a similar case out of Montana.

In this case, Marilyn owned a home. Her sister, Glenda, moved into it with her. In 2008, Marilyn sold to Glenda a one-half interest in the home. Thereafter, both sisters established an irrevocable trust and transferred their respective shares of the home into the trust. In 2016, Marilyn’s health was failing and she needed care. She entered a nursing home and applied for Medicaid the next year. Her application was denied because the state counted the trust property in her eligibility determination.

In a Minnesota appeals court decision, the court ruled that a Medicaid recipient’s irrevocable trust was not a countable asset and that Minnesota law on the matter is preempted by federal law. The decision turned long standing case law on its head, and gave the green light that an irrevocable trust can indeed be a non-countable asset for Medicaid eligibility purposes in Minnesota.

In this case, Geyen was the Grantor of two irrevocable trusts, which were identical except for their names. Her children were Trustees; her children and grandchildren were beneficiaries. Both trusts indicated their irrevocability and gave the Trustees “full power and authority to control” trust property. The trusts forbade the Trustees from loaning or gifting any assets to Geyen.