By Harry S. Margolis

The MassHealth Board of Appeals recently decided a case involving real estate held by a trust in favor of Patricia D'Agostino's client, a current nursing home resident who had sought coverage beginning in December 2017. The trust had been created by the client's now-deceased husband back in 1995 and held two vacation rental properties.

The Trust in Question

At issue were two provisions in the trust. The first gave the client the right to use and occupy the vacation properties and to receive the net rental income. The second permitted the dissolution of the trust upon agreement of all the beneficiaries and the sale of the trust property with the proceeds being paid to the beneficiaries listed on "the then current schedule of beneficiaries," the couple's children.

In general, trustees have a duty of loyalty and care that must be upheld in the management of trust assets and funds. The trustee must only disburse and transfer funds for the benefit of the beneficiaries and for the purposes set out in the terms of the established trust. But what happens when these duties are breached, and the trustee starts transferring funds for their own benefit? For instance, maybe they transfer funds to their own personal bank account and purchase a timeshare in Mexico. This is precisely the alleged situation that divided a family in Whittaker et. al. v. Whittaker (United States District Court, D. Massachusetts, 2019) which they turned into a federal case.

By Harry S. Margolis

So you've been appointed trustee. Now what do you do?

Of course, there are your administrative functions in terms of investments, bookkeeping and paying taxes. But how do you decide how much to give each of the beneficiaries? When? For what purposes?

Some trusts are quite simple -- you're directed to distribute the income, invest the principal and distribute what's left when the life beneficiaries pass away.

By Alison Blum

In 1960, Elizabeth S. Payson executed a will leaving her estate first in trust for her husband and then in trust for the benefit of her daughter, also named Elizabeth. (For purposes of clarity, we''ll refer to the mother as Ms. Payson and the daughter as Elizabeth.) The will directed that after Elizabeth’s death, the net income from a trust should be distributed to Elizabeth’s children (Ms. Payson's grandchildren), until the youngest of these children turned 21. After Elizabeth’s children reached the age of 21, the principal of the trust was to be distributed to Elizabeth’s issue in equal shares.

By Harry S. Margolis

In the combined cases of Jean Maas v. Mary Lou Sudders (Suffolk CA No. 18-129-D) and Henry Hirvi and Eva Hirvi v. Mary Lou Sudders (Suffolk CA No. 18-845-D), Superior Court Judge Douglas H. Wilkins finds that in denying applications for MassHealth benefits in cases involving trusts, MassHealth fails to satisfy the requirements of federal regulation 42 C.F.R. sec. 431.210 (b) that it explain the reasons for the denial.

By Harry S. Margolis

In a case argued by Margolis & Bloom senior associate Sarah Hartline, the Essex Superior Court has overturned a MassHealth denial of coverage for a nursing home resident who MassHealth found had countable assets available from a trust she had created.

The trust in question in Yanow v. Office of Medicaid (Essex Sup. Ct. CA No. 1677CV00599, March 7, 2018), provided for the payment of income earned on trust assets to the grantor, but barred the distribution of any principal to her. Nevertheless, MassHealth argued that due to an administrative provision in the trust which permits the trustee "to determine what part of the trust property is income and what part is principal" the trustee was able to deem all of the trust property "income" and distribute it to the grantor (the applicant for MassHealth benefits).

By Harry S. Margolis

Dad created an estate plan that distributed three quarters of his estate to three of his children and the fourth quarter in trust for one of his daughters, Elaine, and her two children, Paul and Alicia. He named another daughter, Madeline, and her daughter, Paula, as trustees.

Dad died in 2001. The trust for Elaine and her children originally held $542,042. For the next 15 years, Madeline and Paula distributed nothing to Elaine or her children, until 2016 when a court ordered them to make distributions to Elaine so that she "could pay her medical bills and obtain housing." Madeline and Paula did, however, spend more than $50,000 paying for storage of personal items left to Elaine and paid themselves and their attorney.

by Karen B. Mariscal

When our autistic son was 8 years old, he was a holy terror.  That was true when he was younger than 8 and older than 8 (he settled down around the time of puberty, for which I am eternally grateful), but I am focusing on age 8 right now. We had two younger boys as well, then ages 5 and 4.  So when I asked my sister Laura whether she would be the guardian of our children, and take over if something happened to my husband and me, it was with great trepidation.  Laura knew full well what was going on in our house, and how difficult a request I was making.  She responded, without hesitation, “I’d be honored.”  I have tears in my eyes as I write this, as it never fails to get to me, even 17 years later.