Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealtrustwrit of certiorari
appealtrust

Related Cases

Wells Fargo Bank v. Marshall, 20 Cal.App.4th 447, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 507
View Case »
Bland v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 143 N.C.App. 282, 547 S.E.2d 62
View Case »
Milum v. Marsh ex rel. Lacey, 53 S.W.3d 234
View Case »
Toni 1 Trust, by Tangwall v. Wacker, 413 P.3d 1199
View Case »
In re Campbell’s Estate, 46 Haw. 475, 382 P.2d 920
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Petition of Estate of Braiterman, 169 N.H. 217, 145 A.3d 682

Facts

The applicant, Thea Braiterman, created an irrevocable trust in 1994, which included her real and personal property. After her husband's death in 2004, she moved into an assisted living facility, and the trust's assets were managed by her son, David. In 2014, Braiterman applied for Medicaid benefits, but her application was denied because the trust's value exceeded the asset limit for eligibility. The Administrative Appeals Unit upheld this decision, leading to the current appeal.

The applicant created the Trust in 1994, naming herself and her son, David J. Braiterman, as trustees. The applicant resigned as a trustee in 2008. However, the Trust authorized the applicant to appoint additional and successor trustees, and the petitioner acknowledges that the applicant could have resumed service as a trustee by appointing herself as an additional or successor trustee.

Issue

Whether the irrevocable trust established by Thea Braiterman should be considered an asset for the purpose of determining her eligibility for Medicaid benefits.

Whether the irrevocable trust established by Thea Braiterman should be considered an asset for the purpose of determining her eligibility for Medicaid benefits.

Rule

Under federal law, assets that are available to the applicant are considered in determining Medicaid eligibility. Specifically, if there are any circumstances under which payment from an irrevocable trust could be made to or for the benefit of the applicant, the trust is deemed countable as an asset.

Under federal law, only the assets that are 'available to the applicant' are considered to determine her eligibility for Medicaid benefits.

Analysis

The court analyzed the provisions of the trust and determined that Braiterman retained significant powers over the trust, including the ability to appoint trustees and direct distributions. This indicated that there were circumstances under which payments could be made from the trust for her benefit, thus making the trust assets countable in the Medicaid eligibility determination. The court found that the Administrative Appeals Unit's conclusion was reasonable and lawful.

Given the Trust's provisions and the specific facts of this case, we hold that the AAU lawfully and reasonably concluded that there were circumstances under which payment from the Trust could be made to benefit the applicant.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Administrative Appeals Unit, concluding that the irrevocable trust was includable as an asset in determining Thea Braiterman's eligibility for Medicaid benefits. Therefore, the petition for a writ of certiorari was denied.

The Supreme Court, Dalianis, C.J., held that irrevocable trust was includable as an asset in determining applicant's eligibility for Medicaid benefits.

Who won?

New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services prevailed because the court upheld its determination that the trust was includable as an asset for Medicaid eligibility.

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Administrative Appeals Unit, concluding that the irrevocable trust was includable as an asset in determining Thea Braiterman's eligibility for Medicaid benefits.

You must be