Waldock v. Amber Harvest Corporation
2012 ND 180
| N.D. | 2012Background
- Wilfred Dahly and Geraldine Dahly executed powers of attorney naming Rick Dahly as attorney-in-fact.
- Geraldine developed Alzheimer’s; by 2007 Wilfred required 24-hour care, and care arrangements with Greenwell began.
- Care agreements were made with Greenwell for in-home care; Greenwell resided with the Dahlys and provided extensive care.
- Geraldine entered a nursing home in 2008 and began Medicaid; in 2009–2010 Rick transferred Geraldine’s home to Wilfred and later to Greenwell.
- Greenwell sold the home in 2010 for $180,000 and split roughly $160,000 with Rick; Wilfred applied for Medicaid in November 2010 and was denied as asset-proceeds were deemed available assets.
- The Department denied benefits, the district court affirmed, and the Supreme Court reversed and remanded to consider caregiver exemption without counting sale proceeds as available assets.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether caregiver child exemption applies when the transfer is via fiduciary, not personally by the applicant | Dahly argues exemption applies regardless of transfer through a fiduciary | Department argues exemption does not apply if transfer by attorney-in-fact | Exemption applies; fiduciary transfer acceptable under law. |
| Whether proceeds from sale of the home are an actually available asset | Dahly contends proceeds should not be counted as available assets | Department contends proceeds are available assets under rules | Proceeds were not to be counted as available assets on remand. |
| Whether the Department misapplied state trust law to counter federal caregiver exemption | Department’s reliance on trust law improperly undermines federal policy | Department cites trust and undue influence rules to defeat exemption | Department erred as a matter of law; caregiver exemption controls. |
| Whether the court should apply look-back and transfer rules consistently with federal policy | Application of look-back should not defeat exemption | Look-back rules apply to transfers affecting eligibility | Remand to re-evaluate eligibility consistent with caregiver exemption. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kaspari v. Olson, 799 N.W.2d 348 (2011 ND 124) (agency review and eligibility standard; weighing evidence)
- Christensen v. North Dakota Dep’t of Human Servs., 796 N.W.2d 390 (2011 ND 77) (definition of assets actually available; look-back)
- In re Labis, 714 A.2d 335 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1998) (guardian/beneficiary transfers; equal protection considerations)