Medicaid Planners Get Rare Win from COA

The Michigan Court of Appeals has issued an opinion regarding the appropriateness of using probate court protective orders to obtain spousal support orders in situations where such orders impact the calculation of a nursing home resident’s Medicaid “patient pay amount.” The outcome is 80% good for planners, and as such is a refreshing break from the series of punishing COA opinions that have been issued in recent years with respect to Medicaid planning cases.

The case is published, lengthy and involved. Click here to read the combined cases of In Re Joseph VanSach Jr., and In Re Jerome R. Bockes.

For the uninitiated, a “patient pay amount” is the portion of a person’s income that is required to be paid to toward their care when they are in a nursing home receiving long term care Medicaid benefits. The exact amount is a function of Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) policy, which provides a formula for calculating the patient pay amount.  When the nursing home Medicaid beneficiary is married, that formula allows for diversion of income to the “community spouse.” DHHS policy also provides that where a court order directs payment from the nursing home resident to the community spouse, that court order supersedes the formula for determining the amount of income diverted.

In both of the cases before the COA, the local probate court ordered that 100% of the income of the nursing home resident would be paid to the community spouse for their support. These two decisions were appealed by DHHS, represented by the Michigan Attorney General, and the two cases were combined by the Court of Appeals.

The main argument of DHHS was that the probate court lacked jurisdiction to hear these cases. That argument was made on several grounds, all of which failed.  In this decision, the COA holds that probate courts have the authority to grant these orders and that in doing so those courts are not engaged in making DHHS eligibility determinations even though the clear purpose of obtaining such orders may be for that reason.  That’s a big win for the planners.

The COA also holds that the fact that these individuals may have had power of attorneys in place at the time of the petition does not preclude the probate court from getting involved. The COA reasons that the specific form of relief desired (a court order of support) would not be something that an agent acting under a POA could provide, and therefore the court does have jurisdiction to hear these matters.  This holding has potential applications beyond Medicaid planning matters.

After dismissing the primary jurisdictional challenge, the COA ventures into a discussion about how a probate court should decide these cases. The COA holds that in the two cases giving rise to the appeal, the probate courts erred in awarding 100% of the nursing home resident’s income to the community spouse, and vacates both orders and remands the cases.

The COA instructs Michigan’s probate courts that the burden is on the party seeking the order of support to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that the community spouse “needs” the additional income, that it is more than a “want,” and that in deciding whether or how much to award, the probate judge must consider the interests of the institutionalized Medicaid beneficiary and their obligation to contribute toward the costs of their own care. The discussion of this process goes on for several paragraphs, and includes several lengthy footnotes, using, at times, vague and clouded statements to explain how this balance should be struck.  In the end, the opinion seems to intentionally avoid the obvious conclusion that the institutionalized spouse has no real interest in paying anything more than they have to toward their care, as their care remains the same notwithstanding, and that in almost every case the interest of institutionalized spouse would be to divert as much income to support their spouse as possible.  The COA seems to want to direct the probate judge to consider public policy and the interest of the DHHS in making its decision – but they never say that – presumably because there would be not legal basis for doing so.

Importantly, the COA rejects the standard requested by DHHS of “exceptional circumstances resulting in significant financial duress.” But in the same footnote discussion, the COA goes on to say:

… as a matter of common sense, when an incapacitated person needs to be institutionalized to receive full-time medical care, it would be an unusual case for a community spouse’s circumstances to trump the institutionalized spouse’s need for use of his income to pay his medical expenses, particularly when the community spouse has the benefit of the CSMIA. In other words, an institutionalized spouse’s receipt of Medicaid, and a community spouse’s protection under the spousal impoverishment provisions, generally weighs against the entry of a support order.

The result of this case will require more effort in bringing these matters to probate courts in the future. Practitioners will want to establish a record that the probate judge can rely upon to conclude that the burden has been met.  As evidenced by the orders vacated in this appeal, a judge simply concluding that the request was “reasonable” is not good enough.

We should also recognize that while this case is about protective orders used to establish income diversion orders to benefit the community spouse, many of the same rules and standards would presumably apply to the other common use of protective orders in Medicaid planning: orders to establish a protected spousal amount.

In the end, these important planning tools (probate court protective orders) survived the COA and planners should celebrate this decision. It isn’t perfect, but in light of the COA’s prior decisions in this arena, it’s a lot more than might have been expected.

Representing the interests of the elder law bar (as appellees) in these two matters were two renowned elder law practitioners: CT’s own David Shaltz, and my friend and colleague Don Rosenberg.

Read More

Better Than Nothing?

The Michigan Supreme Court has issued an Order denying leave in In Re Conservatorship of Rhea Brody.  However, this same Order “further notes” that the Opinion of the Court of Appeals which was the subject of the request for leave was reformed after the briefs in the case were filed.

Click here to read the Supreme Court Order.

So, a published COA decision is issued. Leave to the MSC is sought.  Briefs are filed, and then the COA revises its opinion so that MSC is satisfied that there is no reason to hear the case. How about that?

I first wrote about this Brody case (there were two of them, a trust case and this conservatorship matter) in the post: Another Brody Bombshell (click on name to visit that post). As discussed at that time, the opinion was riddled with bad law.  As mentioned in another post (Storm Clouds), our firm was hired by the Probate Section of the State Bar to prepare the amicus brief in this matter, which we did.*

The Probate Section wanted only two issues raised:

  1. The finding that the priority given to a “conservator, guardian, or similar fiduciary recognized by the appropriate court of another jurisdiction” could mean an independent trustee over a trust agreement of which the ward was settlor, which trustee was appointed by the same court hearing the conservatorship matter; and
  2. The statement of the Court of Appeals that the statutory priorities for appointment of a conservator “are merely a guide for the probate court’s exercise of discretion.”

I personally also found the case to be worthy of reversal or remand on a third point, which was that the Court appointed a conservator even where a power of attorney was in place and appeared to be effectively handling the affairs of the ward.

The Order of the MSC informs us that the COA has remedied issue number 1 above by issuing a revised opinion.

The second issue is not addressed, and therefore remains problematic language in this published opinion. Presumably we can now argue that appointment of conservators are not controlled by statutory priorities, but are rather left to the discretion of the trial court.

The third issue likewise remains unresolved, and therefore this case seems to stand in opposition to other cases, such as In Re Bittner.

Click here to read the COA Brody opinion as revised.

Better than nothing, I suppose.

*[Much thanks to CT Attorney Drummond Black for his excellent work on the amicus brief.]

Read More

The Fix Is In

In the process of probate administration, there are certain “allowances” that are paid “off the top” before creditors and beneficiaries get what they have coming.   Among those is the exempt property allowance.  The exempt property allowance is currently $15,000.  It goes to the surviving spouse, but if there is no spouse surviving, it is divided among the surviving children.  Since 2000, it has gone to adult surviving children as well as minor children.

In 2015, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued a published opinion in the case of In Re Estate of Shelby Jean Jajuga (click on the name to read the case). Ms. Jajuga died leaving a will and one surviving child.  The will did not leave anything to the child, and expressly stated that the child should “inherit nothing.”  Notwithstanding this expression, the child made a claim for the exempt property allowance and it was granted.  The Court of Appeals concluded that this was ok, and affirmed what I think most practicing probate lawyers believed the law to be, which is that the child gets the allowance regardless of what the will says.

That result did not sit well with some people, and so legislation was introduced to change the outcome. That legislation recently became law.  Specifically, the change is in the language of MCL 700.2404(4).  Click on the statute to read it.

Because the outcome of Jajuga neither surprised nor offended me, I am not a fan of the fix. But as far as fixes go, I think this one is better than it might have been.  Notably, the way the change is written, it does not eliminate the exemption for children, nor limit it to minor children; but rather the exemption remains as it existed, but can be barred by language in a will expressly cutting out the child or children or by simply eliminating their right to an allowance.

Two observations:

When planning for small estates, lawyers may want to disable the exemption so that the exempt property allowance to a child or children does not significantly alter the resulting distribution where non-children (including descendants of deceased children) are takers. Of course this can perhaps be better addressed by simply defining beneficial interests to include an offset for any allowance received.  The risk of routinely disabling this allowance in wills is that in very small or insolvent estates, doing so would elevate creditors above children.

My second point relates to Medicaid estate recovery. In cases where assets mistakenly end up in probate for a decedent who received long term care Medicaid benefits, the exempt property allowance comes before the State of Michigan gets repaid for their estate recovery claim.  The way the fix is written, this remains true.  This will allow children in these cases to continue to have good reason to open the estate, and place them in a better bargaining position with the State with respect to settling estate recovery claims.

Read More