Rodrigues Case and Pending Massachusetts Legislation make Homestead Protection for Trusts a Reality (Finally!)

On February 23, 2010, the US Bankruptcy Court in Massachusetts finally did what the Massachusetts state legislature has been unable to do for years: the court ruled that the Massachusetts Homestead Exemption is applicable to an owner whose property is in a revocable trust. Since this decision, In re Rodrigues, Bankr. D. Mass. Case No. 09-11960-JNF, the legislature has been working to pass a new statute that will replace Massachusetts General Laws, chapter 188, the statute concerning homesteads. The legislature is very close to passing a new law. Today we will review the Rodrigues decision, the pending Massachusetts legislation, and how it may be beneficial to you.

Olga M. Rodrigues and her now deceased husband purchased a home in September 1979. Mr. Rodrigues died in 1994, and Mrs. Rodrigues became the sole owner of the home. Shortly thereafter, she transferred the home into a revocable trust where she was the trustee and her children were the beneficiaries of the trust upon her death. Once the home was transferred into the trust, Mrs. Rodrigues no longer owned the legal title to the home; at the point, she only owned equitable title. In April 2008, less than a year before bankruptcy proceedings were filed against her, Mrs. Rodrigues executed a Declaration of Homestead and recorded the declaration in the Bristol County Registry of Deeds. The declaration stated that she owned, possessed, and occupied the home as her residence and homestead under the Massachusetts General Laws, chapter 188. This declaration was only partially correct because she did not actually own the home, but she did possess it and she was occupying it.

Currently, the law dealing with the Massachusetts Homestead Exemption states that a homestead interest “may be acquired … by an owner or owners of a home or by one or all who rightfully possess the premise by lease or otherwise.” M.G.L., c. 188, §1 (2007). Although Mrs. Rodrigues was no longer a legal owner of the home, when she recorded her Declaration of Homestead, she rightfully held possession of the home and evidenced her intent to occupy the premises as her principal residence. Judge Feeney, the bankruptcy court judge in this case, held that Mrs. Rodrigues’ actions satisfied the Massachusetts law concerning homestead and that she had validly exercised her homestead exemption. The result of this case has encouraged the Massachusetts state legislature to rewrite M.G.L., c. 188, to make it clearer and include language about trusts and the homestead exemption.

Going forward, the proposed law moving through the state legislature specifically uses language allowing a trustee of a trust containing real estate to make a declaration of homestead for the person or persons occupying the premise. The law states that the person claiming the homestead exemption must prove that he or she is using or intends to use the home as his or her principal residence. If this law passes, holding your home in a trust may be a safe way to protect it from unsecure creditors. Please visit the current text of Senate Bill 2401, An Act Relative to the Estate of Homestead.

Proposed Massachusetts Legislation Could Change the Way Assets are Counted for MassHealth

How often do you feel like you know what your state legislators are doing? The whole process can be mysterious and confusing. This week I would like to shed some light on the subject and tell you about a potentially helpful piece of legislation currently pending in the Massachusetts state legislature.

The proposed law would change the way assets are counted when determining whether a spouse in a nursing home, or certain other institutions and community based programs, is eligible for medical assistance through MassHealth (Medicaid). For MassHealth purposes, the spouse in the nursing home is called the “institutionalized spouse” and the spouse still living at home is referred to as the “community spouse.” Currently, under Massachusetts General Laws, chapter 118E, subsection 21A, many different types of income and asset types of both spouses are considered countable for purposes of determining eligibility. The total amount of countable income and assets are major factors the Division of Medical Assistance takes into account when determining if the institutionalized spouse is eligible for medical assistance from the Commonwealth (MassHealth/Medicaid).

The proposed legislation, sponsored in the State House by Representative Alice Peisch, and sponsored in the State Senate by Senator James Eldridge, would alter the language in the statute to make some assets that are currently countable, no longer countable. The proposals in both houses are identical. The proposed legislation would make any money held by the community spouse in an IRA, Keogh plan, or other pension fund non-countable assets as long as regular income distributions are made from the fund OR the community spouse is employed. This means that those assets would not affect the institutionalized spouse’s eligibility for medical assistance. This would come in handy in lots of potential situations, but especially in situations like a spouse in their 50’s suffering from early onset dementia, where the community spouse is still working. Many spouses in their 50’s, 60’s, and even early 70’s still work and more importantly have to work to make ends meet.

This change in the law would also be hugely beneficial to aging couples who have worked hard and diligently saved their money. If one spouse is institutionalized, the community spouse still needs to have the means for adequate support. No one should be penalized for following their financial planner’s advice and putting money away for retirement. In this system, frivolity and impoverishment would no longer be the only path to assistance from MassHealth.

The proposed legislation has been referred to the Joint Committee on Health Care Financing, and a public hearing is scheduled for June 3, 2010, at 1:00, in Hearing Room B1. If you are interested in learning more, contact State Senator James Eldridge. He represents parts of Middlesex and Worcester county. Most importantly, if you would like to see this legislation passed, contact your own local representative and express your support.

Congress Does Unthinkable by NOT Addressing Estate Tax

Who wants to ring in the New Year with uncertainty? Well, that’s what Congress did by not getting around to extending the estate tax before December 31, 2009. Many experts believed this would NEVER happen. I discussed this in several past blog entries in September and December of last year.

Flashback to 2001: At that time, a largely Republican coalition in Congress tried to repeal the estate tax completely, but they were unable to get past a filibuster. So, instead, the changes were put into the tax code when then-President George W. Bush signed a bill that was designed to phase out the estate tax so that by January 1, 2010, the estate tax would no longer exist. However, since this was done through the tax code, Congress would have to revisit the changes within ten years, or the estate tax would come back into effect on January 1, 2011, at a higher rate. Generally all experts in the field believed that Congress would act and not allow the estate tax to disappear completely in 2010. But, Congress was so busy debating health care reform this fall that we have entered 2010, and the estate tax is temporarily gone.

So what will happen now? As of right now, if someone dies in 2010, his or her heirs will not owe any taxes on the estate. Sounds pretty good right? Well don’t go “pulling the plug” on Great Uncle Henry just yet. One also has to consider changes to the capital gains tax. Attorney Deirdre Wheatly-Liss wrote a fantastic blog on this topic.  If that same person dies after December 31, 2010, however, with an estate of 1 million dollars or larger, those same heirs will pay a 55% tax. This means that in 2011, a one million dollar estate will be reduced to $450,000, after taxes are paid. Considerinig your life insurance policies are countable in your overall estate, many more middle-class americans will be subject to estate taxes in 2011 if Congress continues to fail to act.

This uncertainty continues when Congress resumes session this year because our representatives may decide to draft a retroactive law reinstating an estate tax that would extend back to January 1, of this year! (Don’t go spending that windfall inheritance quite yet). No one knows howlong it will take Congress to act or what Congress will do. If Congress does act, then the question will be whether a retroactive law would be upheld in court. Unfortunately, it could be a long time, filled with much speculation, before Congress acts and whether that action is deemed constitutional.

While this uncertainty may exist for quite a while, some steps can be taken to protect your family. Please check in with your elder law attorney to learn about potential planning opportunities and to stay up to date on what Congress is doing with regard to the estate tax.