Transfers to appellant’s son of $551,466.94 from appellant’s bank accounts between 6/20/08 and 5/12/10 as well as the payment of $107,433.98 to the son from proceeds of the sale of appellant’s residence on 12/01/10 are disqualifying transfers of a total of $658,900.92; there is no evidenced benefit received by appellant or her spouse for the transfer of $658,900.92 to the son over a two year period; the multiple transfers of money constitute outright gifts and thus multiple disqualifying transfers.
Category: Not for fair market value
Appeal 1107446
No evidence presented to show that the appellant received fair market value at the time she made the transfers to her son; the payments were done in advance of the services being provided by the appellant’s son; there was no testimony or evidence to demonstrate that this is a typical practice of property management; it is difficult to conclude that the transfers were made exclusively for a purpose other than to qualify for MassHealth when the appellant demonstrated that a contract was entered into after entering a facility and payments were made in advance of services being provided.
Appeal 1009905
Appellant’s withdrawal is a disqualifying transfer; intent and lack of fair market value consideration; appellant had intent to qualify for MassHealth because she was in declining health at the time of the transfer, evidenced by the sale of her home and the need to enter an assisted living center.
Appeal 1010857
Appellant had been in the nursing home nearly 4 months when $36,312.50 was withdrawn from her Seamen’s account to “pay” her friend and attorney-in-fact “for services rendered pursuant to the DPOA”. MassHealth considered the money a gift and thus, a disqualifying transfer; no written agreement to pay for any services rendered; JK was acting as appellant’s trusted friend and there was no agreement that she would be paid to provide any personal care services within or outside of the four corners of the DPOA; the activities provided by JK for appellant do not have an ascertainable fair-market value.
Appeal 0806071
Fair Hearing Rehearing Decision 0806071
Rehearing: the annuity is a private agreement that is no more than an unenforceable, unsecured promise that ten monthly payments of $6,264.34 might be made with a return that is $1,356.60 less that the $64,000.00 transferred; the annuity was entered into by appellant (or someone on her behalf) with an entity not licensed in the Commonwealth, making it legally invalid in the state of Massachusetts; because of the agreement’s invalidity, it cannot be found to have fair market value; appellant entered into this agreement solely for the purpose of establishing eligibility for MassHealth.
MassHealth Appeals 