Every month you delay or avoid putting in place a life savings protection plan is another month that you will have to pay for a Connecticut nursing home with your life savings. That is the way the 5 year look-back works. Sound expensive? It is.

In its most recent survey, the State of Connecticut determined the average monthly cost of a Connecticut nursing home is $9,464.00. This adds up quickly as some people put off implementing life savings protection for months or even years, and others put it off until it is just too late. There is a much less expensive alternative, but before we get to that we have to take a look at what many families are experiencing out there.

Connecticut nursing home costs are among the highest in the nation. Every day I see families stuck writing checks to nursing homes in amounts of $10,000 or more – with no end in sight. These families failed to plan ahead, and they are paying a costly price now. In many cases, these families lose all or a significant portion of their life savings to Connecticut nursing home costs. I wish there was more we could do, but when it is too late it is just too late.

Some families I see try to create their own life savings protection plan. I’ve never seen it work out the way they intend or think it will when people act without an experienced attorney. I see people all the time that have transferred their parent’s money to family members or themselves and for some reason many of these individuals think these transfers will not be a problem when they go through the 5 year look-back period while applying for Connecticut Medicaid nursing home benefits.

Every single financial transaction during the 5 year look-back period is subject to audit and assessment of a penalty if the State deems it a penalizing transfer. You may have the greatest rationale in your own mind , but if you have no evidence and no support in the regulations or case law you really have nothing except a big mess that will cost more to clean up than if you got professional help in the first place.

If what I described above sounds acceptable to you, then you may want to run down to casino and bet everything on black because you are quite the gambler. If you are not the gambling type, and want a strategy you can count on to protect your life savings, keep reading.

The other families I see are looking for solid protection for their hard earned life savings. I am proud to say that I help these families on a regular basis achieve their goals of protecting assets not only for children, but also for their spouse and themselves. It can be done.

You have options to protect your family against a Medicaid required “spend-down”. These options expire, and when they are gone they are gone for good. When you are within five years of needing Connecticut Medicaid nursing home benefits you will not be able to take advantage of these proven techniques. Nobody knows when their 5 year window will start, so most people choose to act sooner rather than later.

One popular option is The Connecticut Medicaid Asset Protection Trust which helps families protect amounts from $50,000 – $1,000,000.00. There are many other techniques that may or may not available depending on your unique situation. Together we can find a solution that works for your unique circumstance.

Doing nothing in July of 2008 just cost you $9,464 in lost asset protection. August is coming to add on another $9,464. See a trend here? The clock is ticking.

This is the second post in my series on critical mistakes people make when facing a Connecticut Medicaid situation. Today I am going to look at a strategy that many people use for different reasons, disinheritance and non-binding oral trusts.

There can be a lot of anxiety when a loved one is in a nursing home and your assets are dwindling at the rate of +$9,000 every month. Unfortunately this anxiety can also lead to poorly informed decisions. Some families I meet come to me with an estate plan that disinherits a loved one that is in a nursing home or on Connecticut Title 19 Medicaid. The logic of this plan is to protect the family assets from being wiped out. This is a knee-jerk reaction that creates more problems than it solves in my opinion.

What can go wrong?

Many times I have family members contact me because a parent has disinherited the other parent (living in a nursing home or diagnosed with dementia) with the understanding that one child or all the children would actually use the funds to provide care for the surviving parent.

The first issue is that such an arrangement is almost non-existent on the scale of enforceability. At best there could be an oral trust but one side of the oral contract is deceased and if there is a conflict it is obvious that the other side of the contract (the child who received the funds) is saying there is no contract. Where is the evidence? At worst, the funds received by the child or children are treated as they look, outright bequests with no strings attached.

A second issue is liability concerns. The funds you intend to care for the surviving parent are now exposed to the liabilities of the person chosen to hold the funds. Common liability risks include divorce, bankruptcy, or even a car accident.

A family with a loved one in a nursing home or on a government benefits program has a choice. Disinheritance is not the only option. Disinheritance is not the preferred option and the government even recognizes this fact by providing specific protection to specific estate planning strategies.

A Special Needs Trust allows you to leave a legacy of care for a loved one in a nursing home without handing over everything to pay nursing home bills. It is absolutely critical that this unique planning is done by an experienced Connecticut special needs attorney because these trusts are reviewed by government benefits agencies and in Connecticut they are usually reviewed by the Attorney General’s office. One mistake in the document and the assets of the trust could be used to pay for bills you did not intend to pay.

I have seen too many families torn apart by using disinheritance as asset protection. There is no need for it. You have a choice. Put your plan on paper and leave your family with some security.

As we kick off the new year it is a good time to take a look back at 2007.

I am proud of what this site accomplished in 2007. Starting with no visitors as all sites do and moving up to 600 visitors a month is great, and exceeded my expectations. I appreciate everyone that stops by and takes the time to get educated about Connecticut estate planning and elder law issues. I hope you find the information here valuable and will visit again.

The most popular posts of 2007 were:

1. Estate Planning for Title 19;
2. 9 Questions to Ask BEFORE Entering a Nursing Home;
3. Revocable Trusts and Connecticut Medicaid;
4. Title 19 Penalties and Gifts;
5. Myths and Realities of Living Trusts in Connecticut.

Five is enough. I won’t bore you with a top ten.

I’m already working on making 2008 a great follow-up to what we accomplished in 2007. Stay tuned for details. Have a happy and healthy new year.

Apparently there is a lot of bad asset protection planning for Connecticut Medicaid Title 19 benefits going on out there. Asset protection can be very tricky. The wrong word in the wrong place can wreak havoc with a client’s goals and leave you with no protection. The right word (or omission) in the right place can conversely protect hundreds of thousands of dollars. Another case that went to judgment in Connecticut Superior Court highlights a common oversight when it comes to estate planning – flawed language leading to inadequate asset protection.

Rome v. Wilson-Coker (Ct. Super. Ct., No. HHBCV064012367S, Oct. 24, 2007).

Marjorie Rome is bipolar with a history of institutionalizations. She needs help and a certain level of benefits to receive treatment for her condition. Presumably with good intentions and a desire to help Marjorie, her father created a trust for Marjorie in his will. The trust was based on the model of a discretionary trust which vested discretion in the trustee to make or refuse distributions for Marjorie’s benefit.

Unfortunately, for some reason which I fail to comprehend, the trust language directed the trustee to make distributions as necessary for Marjorie’s “interest and general welfare, even to the extent of exhausting the entire Trust estate.” This is a big blunder if you want to include asset protection in your estate plan or trust and it cost the Rome family.

So eventually Marjorie entered a nursing home and applied for Medicaid. The Department of Social Services denied her application based on their determination that her father’s trust was available to Marjorie as an asset. The Trustee thought it was a good idea to deny distributions to Marjorie for nursing home costs, mistakenly believing that he actually had real discretion to do so.

Marjorie Rome later pleads her case to the Superior Court claiming that the trust is not available because the Trustee is refusing to make distributions to her. The court recognizes that the flawed language in her father’s trust gives Marjorie a right to compel distributions from the trust even if the Trustee refuses.

Her father made a mistake in his estate plan, and Marjorie had to pay for it. If you are looking for asset protection, do everything you can to make sure it works.