Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some parents stubbornly resist giving up info about their finances except to drop hints about where they want to live when they have to give up their own house due to advanced age...with the unspoken expectation that the kids will pay for everything.
It is not fair to force offspring to ruin their own retirement to support a parent who does not disclose their own financial information. If a parent won't pay for appropriate insurance to take care of his or her needs, a child who is forced into doing so for the parent is then robbing himself of money that should pay for his or her own future.
The real problem is that people are living too long past their ability to function independently. I get that nursing homes shouldn't be stuck with the costs, but neither should ANYONE but the patient, unless they are willing to be put in that role. A child who received a huge gift(s) more than five years earlier might be willing to do so, but what about those who never got anything, and in fact maybe also saw their sibling get a huge gift but not them?
dot.gov needs to step up (and I don't mean by facilitating this filial BS).
I had a prophetic dream some years ago.
I beheld a place that had an appearance similar to a military base. It had barracks and large dining halls, large medical and fitness facilities.
Everyone there was quite old.
When I have a dream that will eventually become a deja vu, I can usually tell. It was that type of dream.
The thread started about filial laws in general, and ONE example given was the Pittas case. SOME comments have been about that case, others have been general comments about filial responsibility laws.
I believe I said MY comments were NOT about the Pittas case -- but about clarification of your thoughts on filial responsibility laws in general.
Yes, and Lenora, you said:
So IF you are in favor of going back BEFORE the 5 year look back…just how far are you willing to go?…to a gift given when the parent is 50 years old and they're not in a nursing home until 70?. AND if it's a gift -- just what proof what would satisfy you that it was given with no thought to "moving assets" or protecting an inheritance? Just how would you, Lenora, prove "the intention." Keep in mind that ACTIONS don't prove intention. Which is one problem with FR laws. A parent may indeed buy a car or give a child a down payment -- you can't PROVE it was done so they wouldn't have money for a nursing home 4 years later.
And of course it's filial responsibility. Suppose the parent gives money to one of their own adult siblings? …a 50-year-old brother, for example The adult child may not even be handing the parents money at that point. How are they to know the 70 year old parent gave a 55 year old uncle any money at all. Then YEARS later at 74-and-six months the parent needs a nursing home. The adult child knew nothing of the parents finances, yet they COULD be held responsible for the parent's nursing home care?
Not likely to happen. Well clearly at least one person is concerned enough about it to intentionally keep their mom out of state to make SURE they're NOT affected by filial responsibility laws and the state can't try to get paid for the parent's care So clearly that person knows there are plenty of people who get caught up and scr ew ed over by a law's Unintended application and consequences.
And BTW how is that -- keeping mom who is already IN a home out of state so you can't be held responsible -- any different from using legal, legitimate asset protection options YEARS BEFORE anyone is even thinking about a nursing home? Talk about intention?…. one is clearly doing it to avoid responsibility, in the other case there's not even a though about any nursing home. And for all we know a lawyer told the adult child to keep mom out of state just for that protection. Both are LEGAL.
A couple of points. I agree there should not be more than a 5 year look back.
Two you have made general statements that you disagree with the law and bring out a bunch of what ifs that are not part of this case or seem to be the kinds of what ifs that are being taken to task under this law.
I can tell you that if you have been giving money to children and grandchildren habitually they will not use that as a premise to go after those children and grandchildren. It is not that type of transfer that triggers the look back. For example you have been funding a retirement account for adult children to the tune of 5k per year I seriously doubt that will trigger an even like what the Pittas family triggered.
Moving mom so that a family member who is broke and reporting that they can pay is against the law. Try not to bring in something that is clearly a troublesome. Your what ifs are just that "WHAT IF". For the most part people are following the law and are not being threatened with this law. I have not searched yet but I do not think this law is used very often and only in cases where the family clearly knew they were in the wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP
I just started a thread on how spending in dollars adjusted for inflation declines as we age in retirement. That financial advisors are seeing clients with their income beginning to exceed their spending more and more. Made me wonder if the temptation for folks is to give that extra money to kids and grand kids leaving them exposed to the risk of this thread.
As I state above. It is not the gifting of money to kids that will trigger a look back. Sure they will look back but if they see a pattern of gifting regularly to say a Roth IRA for adult children there is no wrong doing there. It is when you transfer a home within that 5 year window knowingly to avoid paying. Now it is true that something could happen before that 5 years have passed and in that event there are things that can be done to keep the asset the way it is. Just be prepared ahead of time for the eventuality that you might need those resources.
I beheld a place that had an appearance similar to a military base. It had barracks and large dining halls, large medical and fitness facilities.
Everyone there was quite old.
I saw real poor houses when I was a kid. They didn't have "facilities", just barracks and hard wooden chairs. (Child's memory)
Actually, I think it is a good idea. Take a large military facility like Yuma or China Lake and make it into a reservation. Instead of native Americans, you give it to senior citizens to establish a quasi independent nation. As an independent nation, it is imperative that all debts and IOUs be honored. I bet they will build an empire out of the desert. Everyone will want a job on the reservation.
In Baltimore, what would you do to get a person's child to pay for a parent? Withhold the child's welfare check?
Hate to say it, but it's the first thing I thought of -- can't get blood from a stone.
If the government is already supporting three generations of a family??…..then what?
Most poor people live with their family. If one suddenly loses his or her home, it is likely he or she will rotate between the homes of different family members. If the family truly can't take in grandma, then she will qualify for Medical Assistance and no, the government won't try to get her adult children to pay.
The working class used to take care of their own. I don't know if they still do, but I do know they don't go about setting up trusts, revocable life estates, etc. in order to leave what little they have to their children. That's for the middle - upper class. Needless to say, I'm strongly opposed to spending down funds/gifting to children in order to qualify for Medical Assistance.
The homeless are different. Many are veterans and most are mentally ill. They don't necessarily come from poor families. There are adult children who have desperately tried to help their homeless parent, but the parent refuses their help. Unless the parent ends up in a state mental hospital, the State will not try to recoup the costs from the adult child.
In general, as noted above, unlike the upper or middle class, the poor tend to take in their own. If the aged parent needs nursing home care, the state will appoint a conservator and granny's $20,000 house will be sold. The $20,000 will be applied towards granny's nursing home bill and Medical Assistance will pay the rest.
(Selhars) Yes, and Lenora, you said: Quote: I'm totally fine with the state clawing back that money even if it is beyond the 5 year Medicaid look back.
Nope. I did not say that. But I probably should have. Draining Mom and & Dad's financial resources is a no-no.
I think the day may come when transferring a home to avoid paying for your own care will become a problem. Many homes today are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars - is it really right that taxpayers pick up the bill because the house got transferred before the five year limit? Sure, it's great for the lucky families but not so swell for taxpayers. Really, shouldn't this asset pay for the care of the people who bought and owned it?
I think gifting on a regular basis is one thing, but moving a huge asset like a home to avoid picking up your own tab for long term care kind of bugs me, legal or not.
I was brought up by parents who lived through the depression. They saved scrupulously, bought LTCi and would be horrified to be dependent on the government and not take care of themselves. In fact, my mother paid over 90k into LTCi and never got a penny back, even while living to her mid-90s but never begrudged it as it gave her peace of mind.
Guess sometimes I get sick of all the "gaming the system" by people who could afford to not dump on the taxpayers. The cookie jar is emptying out rapidly.
This is something I did not know. Must not be used very often.
It's been rarely invoked. The only cases I know of recently is where the kids were really idiots - totally ignoring the fact that the parent had no funds to pay their bills, and did not get the medicaid forms in on time.
People have talked about how these laws haven’t been used – I’m more concerned about how they COULD be used.
TPTB are only going after low hanging fruit TODAY – let a few years go by, and let state financial coffers get down too low. You think they WON”T go after anyone they can. It’s not like we’ve never seen laws used against people they were never intended for. Some people act like laws never have UNintend consequences.
-- RICO (racketeering) statues weren’t enacted to be used against legitimate businesses – but they are being used that way.
-- S - x offender laws weren’t really intended for prosecuting two 16-year olds who hook up, but they are.
-- Civil forfeiture laws weren’t meant to be used the way they are sometimes today.
Have you never heard a lawyer or prosecutor say, “Well the law really wasn’t intended for a case like this.”
(never see a news story about it)
I don’t’ care if only one or two people get caught up in filial responsibility suits – that’s one or two people too many. We don’t know HOW desperate states will be – in the NEAR future.
many seem to think it’s not likely that a person who has no ill intent would be sued under a filial responsibility law. But one person said he’s not moving mom in state because of it. Why not, what’s the problem if that’s not how the law is being applied.. Because that’s how it COULD be applied?. That’s why. And the person is absolutely right not to take that chance.
I just hope some people don't have a rude awakening ahead.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
