30.04.2015 Views

Probate & Trust Law Section Conference Manual ... - Minnesota CLE

Probate & Trust Law Section Conference Manual ... - Minnesota CLE

Probate & Trust Law Section Conference Manual ... - Minnesota CLE

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

follows:<br />

[Undue hardship] exists when application of the<br />

transfer of assets provisions would deprive the<br />

individual of medical care such that his/her health or<br />

his/her life would be endangered. Undue hardship<br />

also exists when application of the transfer of assets<br />

provisions would deprive the individual of food,<br />

clothing, shelter or other necessities of life. Undue<br />

hardship does not exist when application of the<br />

transfer of assets provisions merely causes the<br />

individual inconvenience or when such application<br />

might restrict his or her lifestyle but would not put<br />

him/her at risk of serious deprivation.... You [the<br />

state] have considerable flexibility in deciding the<br />

circumstances under which you will not impose<br />

penalties under the transfer of assets provisions<br />

because of undue hardship....<br />

X. THE MINNESOTA CASES INTERPRETING FEDERAL RESTRICTIONS ON<br />

RECOVERY OF MA BENEFITS CORRECTLY PAID<br />

A. ESTATE OF BARG<br />

<strong>Minnesota</strong> appellate courts have issued recent decisions involving Medical<br />

Assistance estate recovery issues. The Barg case is the starting point for any<br />

estate recovery claim made against the estate of a surviving spouse for Medical<br />

Assistance benefits paid on behalf of the predeceased spouse who died prior July<br />

1, 2009. In re: Estate of Francis E. Barg, 752 N.W.2d (Minn. 2008), reh’g<br />

denied (July 21, 2008), cert. denied sub nom. Vos v. Barg, 129 S.Ct. 2859<br />

U.S. 2859 (2009). Attorney Thomas J. Meinz of Princeton, MN, represented<br />

the Estate.<br />

B. ESTATE OF GROTE<br />

The Grote court upheld recovery against the surviving spouse’s estate when the<br />

husband and wife owned property jointly at the time of the predeceased Medical<br />

Assistance recipient’s death. In re: Estate of Sylvester G. Grote, 766 N.W. 2d<br />

82 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009). The court held that the full value of the homestead<br />

was subject to recovery if the property was still in joint tenancy when the<br />

recipient spouse died. The parties did not request review by the <strong>Minnesota</strong><br />

Supreme Court. The Grote case might have been wrongly decided, but an<br />

appeal to the <strong>Minnesota</strong> Supreme Court would be necessary to overturn it.<br />

31

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!