Trust assets are countable; after date of notice of MassHealth ineligibility and prior to appeal hearing appellant transferred assets out of trust for a number of purposes, including to fund a pre-paid irrevocable burial arrangement, and to fund a pooled trust account in her name; transfers made to pooled trust were permissible; transfer to purchase prepaid funeral and burial was also permissible; however, 60-day clock to revise trust to comply with criteria of pooled trust begins when MassHealth issues notice of ineligibility; insufficient information for hearing officer to determine whether additional amounts transferred out of trust were permissible.
No evidence that appellant made transfer with intent other than to assist a specific child in need; medical event that caused appellant’s short-term placement in skilled nursing facility was not reasonably foreseeable; intent behind transfers was not to gain MassHealth eligibility.
Transfer of home to trust within look-back period not disqualifying because the trust then sold the home for fair market value, and then proceeds were used to pay for new house in which Appellant had ownership interest; transfer of $42,000 is disqualifying because insufficient evidence to verify that it was repayment for work on the appellant’s former home.
Appellant will now be given the June 4, 2015 start date she is seeking; no longer a disqualifying transfer issue; additional information received from Appellant’s side related to Appellant’s reverse mortgage.
Appellant issued a check to her granddaughter for $17,900; written codification was entered into after the services were rendered, and Appellant did not make contemporaneous payments for the services; Appellant’s granddaughter testified that she did not perform the services for free; rather, she agreed to perform the services and Appellant agreed to compensate her granddaughter at a later date; presented contemporaneous logs as well as the written codification of the agreement signed by Appellant; rebutted the presumption that the services were intended to be provided without compensation.
MassHealth determined that the appellant transferred assets when she paid her son and daughter-in-law for services under a personal care contract; compensation for a variety of personal services; the services she received were not worth the $48,550 that she paid but did have some value; remanded for MassHealth to redetermine the period of ineligibility.
Transfer of $36,000.00 was made exclusively for a purpose other than to qualify for MassHealth and therefore not a disqualifying transfer; Appellant transferred to her grandchildren a gift of $12,000.00 each; Appellant did so relying on tax advice and in an attempt to ease the financial burden of her grandchildren; at the time of the transfer the Appellant was 83 years old and although she had a number of medical issues she was in reasonably good health and there is no evidence that she transferred the funds with the knowledge that she would be entering a nursing home in 2010 or with the intent to establish eligibility for MassHealth benefits in 2011.
At the time of the transfer the appellant was in good health, living on her own and decided to give a gift to her daughter who was having financial difficulties; no evidence the appellant transferred the funds with the intent to apply for MassHealth 3½ years later; the transfer of $10,000.00 was for a purpose other than to qualify for MassHealth and therefore not a disqualifying transfer.
Appellant, her husband and their daughter Rebecca and her husband Todd entered into a caregiver agreement; Appellant paid a lump sum of $50,000 in March 2007 for services that had been provided since September 2005 and were contemplated to continue to be provided for as long as possible into the unknown future; no enforcement mechanism available to appellant since the agreement could have been terminated “for whatever reason”; vague list of potential types of care to be provided with no concomitant hourly, daily, monthly or per-activity payment rate for the care; however, Appellant certainly received fair-market value for her housing and care; it was only a matter of financial circumstances that the $50,000 was not paid contemporaneously with the signing of the agreement in September 2005; thus, appellant’s payment of $50,000 to Rebecca on 3/31/07 was not a disqualifying transfer.
The care agreement is an enforceable contract supported by more than adequate consideration – namely, the earnings the daughter forewent; daughter left her job and gave up far greater earnings and earning potential to stay home with appellant and care for her; Appellant has demonstrated that she received fair-market value for the monies paid to her daughter under the agreement; the daughter was essentially a full-time, live-in care giver.