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.
Category: Personal care contract
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.
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.