Bleick v. North Dakota Department of Human Services
2015 ND 63
N.D.2015Background
- Shirley Bleick reserved a life estate in farmland she conveyed to her son, Brian; Brian and his tenant (Ulmer) have farmed and paid rent for land that includes parts of her life estate.
- Brian holds a durable power of attorney for Shirley, who suffers from dementia; he managed her finances and received rental proceeds directly from Ulmer.
- Shirley received Medicaid after a 2007 application, but benefits were discontinued in 2011 when she failed to supply requested documentation; a subsequent 2011 application was denied because the Department treated the life-estate income as an available asset exceeding the $3,000 asset limit.
- The Department found the rental income (including imputed rent for quarters Brian and his wife occupy) was effectively gifted annually or otherwise available to Shirley, and she presented no evidence she would be unable to recover the income through legal action.
- The ALJ and Department both affirmed denial of benefits; the district court affirmed, and the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the Department’s findings were supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether rental income from Shirley’s life estate is an available asset for Medicaid | Bleick: rental income was gifted long ago (1988) and thus not available or was transferred before look-back | DHS: income stream is available (annual gift or otherwise) and exceeds Medicaid asset limit | Held: Income stream is an available asset; preponderance supports DHS finding it exceeds limits |
| Whether past transfers/gifts bar DHS from counting income (look‑back) | Bleick: any gift occurred in 1988, before the look‑back, so not disqualifying | DHS: evidence shows ongoing annual gifting or that income is currently available; DHS did not rely on disqualifying transfers from prior years | Held: Court did not need to decide past-transfer issues because present income stream alone disqualifies eligibility |
| Whether Bleick must show she would be unable to obtain income via legal action | Bleick: she presented evidence she would be unsuccessful (statute of limitations, estoppel) | DHS: applicant must show a legal action would be unsuccessful; absent that, income is “actually available” | Held: Burden on applicant; Bleick failed to show a legal action would be unsuccessful, so income is available |
| Effect of POA/confidential relationship on transfer/gift analysis | Bleick: gifts were valid and permanent | DHS: POA/confidential relationship raises presumption of undue influence; transactions to fiduciary are scrutinized | Held: Brian’s POA creates a confidential/fiduciary relationship; gifts to him are presumptively suspect and support finding income is available to Shirley |
Key Cases Cited
- Makedonsky v. North Dakota Dep’t of Human Servs., 746 N.W.2d 185 (describing standard for "actually available" assets and burden to show legal action would fail)
- Linser v. Office of Attorney General, 672 N.W.2d 643 (explaining fact-specific inquiry into whether assets are actually available)
- Estate of Gross v. North Dakota Dep’t of Human Servs., 687 N.W.2d 460 (assets at applicant's disposal are includable)
- Opp v. Ward County Soc. Servs. Bd., 640 N.W.2d 704 (focus on applicant’s practical ability to make assets available)
- Doeden v. Stubstad, 755 N.W.2d 859 (elements and intent required for a valid gift)
- Zeman v. Mikolasek, 25 N.W.2d 272 (gift requires present intent to relinquish dominion)
- Estate of Vizenor ex rel. Vizenor v. Brown, 851 N.W.2d 119 (confidential relationships create presumptions of undue influence)