Evicting Aunt

[ziphash]

This question is for my in-laws in Ohio. My FIL's aunt (72 yrs.) never learned to drive and when her husband died my FIL was constantly driving her all over the place. It became too much for him and he and my MIL decided that they would allow his aunt to add onto their home so they wouldn't have to do so much running. (1997)

There was no written agreement. However, they told his aunt that if it ever came to a point that she wasn't able to take care of herself she would have to go to a personal care home. His aunt agreed to it and she put approximately $30,000 into adding onto the home. My in-laws have paid all the water, gas, electric, and cable bills for the first 3 yrs. The aunt has paid them for approx. 1 yr. now.

The aunt has now become unable to care for herself and we are questioning her mental status. She and my MIL got into an argument this morning and she told the aunt that she was going to have to go to a personal care home (she's been told this a few times before). The aunt went to the hospital and was admitted for dehydration. My MIL told her doctor that she no longer has a home and is to be admitted to a personal care home immediately. The aunt told the doctor she was leaving the hospital and going back to her home. The doctor won't discharge her.

The question is: Does the aunt have any legal right to the house since she put so much money into it? My in-laws have said that the aunt can have all of her possessions, but is never allowed to come to the house again.

[Edited by ziphash on 05-25-2001 at 08:01 PM]

 

[lawrat]

What she has put in is $30K but this obviously adds to the overall value of the home. But your parents-in-law have been paying for the utilities on that portion. So..... she does have an equitable share, although percentage wise I don't know.


____________________________________________________________
I am a law school graduate. What I offer is mere information, not to be construed as forming an attorney client relationship.

 

[ziphash]

If they evict her, can the aunt sue?

 

[dj1]

Sue for what? OH yes she can.....$30,000...

Why becuse she has paid for her place to live, and she could have paid a hospital the money,

But then again without any reciepts, what can she prove?

If she got a smart lawyer he might be able to prove you converted HER money to YOUR use, and it is about the same as THEFT from her bank account.

Very touchy issue.....I figure she DID NOT get $30,000 worth of use out that property so she has a claim.

Now if she put that $30,000 in say 10 15 years ago...well she got plenty of use for her money, but 4 years...?

Just though of another issue since she HAD $30,000 most states will NOT allow you to collect medicaid or state services for 3 to 5 years after you dispose of your home or give your money away. YOU aunt is very close to that line and if they want to sue your aunt for the cost of the hospital, and saw that she gave you $30,000 well they might come after you to pay HER hospital bil since it has not been 3 to 5 years ago.

If thats the case you'd better let her back into her apartment.

[Edited by dj1 on 05-25-2001 at 09:45 PM]

 

[dj1]

The 3 years might start counting when she started paying her own bills last year so she has 2 years to go...

Can you prove that the Bills, cable phone medication came out of her $30,000 and not out of your checking account?



======================================================




5101:1-39-077 Medicaid: improper transfers of resources.

(A) For medicaid applications received on or before January 31, 1995, if the CDHS
determines that an individual applying for or in receipt of medicaid made an improper
transfer of resources on or after January 1, 1990, that individual, if otherwise eligible for
medicaid is eligible for a period of restricted medicaid coverage. The period of restricted
medicaid coverage is defined as the period of time that an individual is ineligible for long
term care facility (LTCF) vendor payments and home and community-based services (HCBS).

(1) This provision regarding restricted coverage is limited to institutionalized individuals
and individuals in receipt of HCBS; however, all individuals applying for medicaid must be
scrutinized for improper transfers of resources since the individual may enter a LTCF or
qualify for HCBS at a later date. If the CDHS determines that a non-institutionalized
medicaid individual has improperly transferred resources, the CDHS shall employ a tracking
system to keep an account of these individuals should they apply at a later date for
assistance for vendor payment or HCBS. If the individual enters a LTCF or is in receipt of
HCBS, within thirty months from the date of the improper transfer, a period of restricted
coverage shall be applied, if it is still applicable.

(2) When an individual requests or reapplies for vendor payment or HCBS, and it has
been determined that an improper transfer has occurred on or after January 1, 1990, the
CDHS shall deny/terminate assistance for vendor payment or HCBS per the ODHS 7334
"Notice of Denial of Your Application for Assistance" or the ODHS 4065 "Prior Notice of Right
to a State Hearing;" however, an ODHS 4074 "Notice of Approval of Your Application for
Assistance" shall be issued to authorize all other medicaid covered services. Furthermore,
the denial or the termination notice shall note the date full medicaid coverage shall be
restored.

Note: A spouse may not improperly transfer a resource to make his/her spouse eligible
for assistance.

(3) The period of restricted coverage begins the first day of the month the resources
were transferred. The number of months in the restricted coverage period is equal to thirty
months or less if a lesser period results when the total uncompensated value of the
transferred resources is divided by the current average monthly private pay rate for a LTCF.
During the period of restricted coverage, the individual is not eligible for LTCF vendor
payment and HCBS; however, a medicaid card may be issued for other medicaid covered
services if all other eligibility requirements are met. The period of restricted coverage begins
the first day of the month the resources were transferred and continues until the
thirty-month period ends or less if a lesser period is determined.

(B) For medicaid applications received on or after February 1, 1995, if the county
department of human services (CDHS) determines that an individual or his spouse, applying
for or in receipt of medicaid, made an improper transfer of resources, that individual is
eligible for a period of restricted medicaid coverage. The period of restricted medicaid
coverage is defined as the period of time that an individual is ineligible for long term care
facility (LTCF) vendor payments and home and community- based services (HCBS).

(1) In order to determine the period of restricted coverage, the CDHS must determine
the following:

(a) Baseline date: the first date in which an institutionalized individual applied for
medicaid. When an individual is already a medicaid recipient and becomes institutionalized,
the baseline date is the first day of institutionalization.

(b) When an individual has multiple periods of institutionalization or has made multiple
applications for medicaid (whether or not they are approved), the look-back date is based
on a baseline date that is the first date upon which the individual has both applied for
medicaid and is institutionalized. Thus, each individual has only one look-back date,
regardless of the number of periods of institutionalization, applications for medicaid, periods
of eligibility, or transfers of assets.

(c) Look-back date: the date thirty-six months prior to the baseline date.

(d) Look-back period: the period that begins with the look-back date and ends with the
baseline date.

 

[ziphash]

Thanks for your input.

The aunt is quite well-off and does have more than one medical ins. so I don't think any state program would be an issue.

As far as the $30,000 goes, if you figure what she would've paid in utilities over three years it would've been over $15,000. That still leaves around $15,000. Everything was in my in-laws names including the credit card bills to pay for the building materials which the aunt reimbursed the in-laws for with cash. All the utilities were in my in-laws' names, too. When the aunt started paying part of the utilities the past year, she paid by check.

At this point, my MIL has said she doesn't care if they come and tear the aunt's part of the house off or if she does have to pay her something. She said there's absolutely no way the aunt's getting back in the house because she's been manipulating too long and it's gone too far this time.

We're just trying to figure out what, if anything, the in-laws will owe her.

Thanks again.