Risks of Practicing Real Estate in the Age of Medicaid
The fact is that most people won't lose their homes if they receive competent legal advice.
March 01, 2018 at 12:01 AM
6 minute read
We've all received the call—aging parents wanting to transfer their homes to their children. Beware: What might seem like a simple real property question can turn into a Medicaid mess. Gifts, including any transfer for less than fair market value, can trigger immediate transfer penalties, including loss of all benefits, request for recoupment of overpayments and nursing home discharge. More and more, real estate attorneys need to be asking clients questions about medical benefits, healthcare needs and long-term care before drafting real property deeds.
Here's the problem: Mom or Dad might need nursing care and can't afford the $5,000.00 or more a month it can cost, so they apply for Medicaid to pay the difference. Immediately, the State workers, and well-intentioned providers begin the drum beat: The state is going to take mom's home. Terrified of losing the home, the client then gives the home away to the kids, a transfer of assets for less than fair market value, which can result in immediate loss of all benefits. Medicaid assesses a transfer penalty for most transfers made in the previous five years without full fair market value compensation. (Medicaid Eligibility Handbook [MEH] Section I-1200) The penalty period for most transfers doesn't begin to run until the first day of the month when the client is otherwise eligible. (MEH Section I-5200)
Why not just leave the home in Mom's or Dad's name? You may do so at the risk of losing it. The threat comes from the great boogeyman of Medicaid—The Medicaid Estate Recovery Program or MERP. MERP causes so much fear among the elderly that many who need care refuse to apply for benefits. It's a misunderstood Medicaid program, and Texas Health and Human Services has no stated intention of correcting the pervasive culture of misinformation.
The program creates fear in the hearts of the elderly and disabled because it allows Texas to recover from the probate estates of people who have received long-term care benefits. The fact is that most people won't lose their homes if they receive competent legal advice.
Many people believe MERP can take a person's home during that person's life to pay for care or that MERP can put a lien on the home. That is simply not true. The truth is that the statute controlling MERP is a creditor claim statute, making MERP a Class 7 creditor under Section 355 of the Texas Estates Code. Not only can't MERP take the client's home during her life, but in terms of getting paid from the estate, they rate just above unsecured credit card debt. (Tex. Estates Cd. Sec. 355.) Just as importantly, MERP can never put a lien on a nonprobate home in Texas. That's why any time a client receives long-term care Medicaid, the goal is to remove the estate from the formal probate process.
The solution is often a Lady Bird deed or a transfer on death deed. Both are enhanced life estate deeds that do not trigger penalty periods under Texas Medicaid rules. This allows the grantor to retain, above and beyond a traditional life estate, the right to sell, transfer, encumber or take most other actions a fee simple owner could take, without the joinder of the remainder beneficiary, as the grantor also retains the power of appointment. They both convey only a contingent remainder interest and thus incur no transfer penalty under Medicaid rules. Title then passes automatically upon the grantor's death. Thus, the home is a nonprobate asset, not subject to a MERP claim.
While neither Lady Bird deeds and transfer on death deeds trigger Medicaid penalties, both allow retention of all property tax exemptions. A Lady Bird deed conveys warranties and can be signed by an agent under a power of attorney. A transfer on death deed is revocable, but it carries no warranties, cannot be signed by an attorney-in-fact under a power of attorney and does not trigger a due-on-sale clause if there is a mortgage.
Lady Bird deeds come in handy when the grantor lacks capacity, as long as the conveyance follows the will or intestate succession, if there is no will.
If an agent under a statutory durable power of attorney is signing on behalf of the principal, make sure that the agent does not transfer the home to himself. Title companies may not insure a subsequent sale because of questions over self-dealing and possible breach of fiduciary duty. For this reason, most planning firms include specific self-dealing language to allow this type of transaction.
In fact, the legislative and judicial focus in recent decades has been to scrutinize self-dealing and accounting by agents. Section 751 Subchapter C of the Texas Estates Code clarifies that fiduciary agents have a duty to inform and account for actions. The courts say the agent owes the principal the “high duty of good faith, fair dealing, honest performance and strict accountability,” according to the Texas Court of Appeals in Sassen v. Tanglegrove Townhouse Condo Assoc. That duty is increasingly including the duty to investigate the direct, life-threatening repercussion of losing Medicaid benefits.
Attorneys must exercise caution and ask a lot of questions about a client's health and their plans for paying for their health care in the coming years before drafting deeds. Remember that transfers can deny people vital nursing care services by pricing them out of range during a transfer penalty period. Call an expert if you are unsure. Remember that no one should have to refuse nursing care for fear of losing her home, and thank goodness, give-backs are always allowed!
Stephanie Townsend Allala is CEO of Townsend Allala and Associates in El Paso, an Elder Law firm. She is a director on the board of the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys-Texas Chapter, and she uses transfer on death deeds and Lady Bird deeds in her regular practice. She can be reached at [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNondisparagement Clauses in Divorce: Balancing Family Harmony and Free Speech
6 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250