Dean and Patricia were married for more than 50 years. In early 2017, Dean entered a nursing home. Patricia, acting as Dean’s authorized representative, executed the residency agreement with the nursing home. About six months later, Patricia filed an application for Medicaid benefits on Dean’s behalf. It was denied and several more applications were submitted before one was eventually accepted.

Dean died about three months later. The nursing home filed suit against Patricia, seeking Dean’s unpaid balance and alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and responsibility under Iowa Code Section 597.14. The trial court found for the nursing home under Section 597.14 and rejected all other claims from both sides. Patricia appealed and now we have the instant ruling out of the Court of Appeals of Iowa.

From the announcement of the increased annual exclusion and gift and estate tax exemption for 2022 to the release of proposed regulations implementing the Corporate Transparency Act, we have recently seen significant developments in estate planning and business law. To ensure that you stay abreast of these legal changes, we have highlighted some noteworthy developments and analyzed how they may impact your estate planning and business law practice.

A new case out of the Court of Appeals of Ohio analyzes whether the beneficiary of a transfer-on-death (TOD) account was liable for an unpaid nursing home bill, based on a fraudulent transfer claim. Here, Marian was admitted to a nursing home facility and died about a month later. She left an unpaid balance to the home of roughly $16,000. The nursing home sued Marian’s son, Fredric, alleging fraudulent transfer due to a TOD beneficiary designation that Marian had executed before her death on an investment account, naming Fredric as beneficiary. The nursing home wanted compensation from the investment account funds that Fredric received.

The trial court ruled in favor of Fredric, and the nursing home appealed. The Court of Appeals of Ohio reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded for further action. The parties litigated further and the trial court once again ruled in favor of Fredric. The appeals court once again took on the case and now we have the instant ruling.