Page 180

Page 10 of 40 § 10:71-4.10 Transfer of assets Medicaid applicants' challenge to state-payback requirement for community spouse annuity trusts (CSATs), whereby state was required to be named first beneficiary of trust assets upon death of spouse residing in community if it had paid benefits on behalf of institutionalized spouse, was moot, where, upon its decision to count CSAT assets in determining Medicaid eligibility, state no longer imposed state-payback condition. Johnson v. Guhl, 357 F.3d 403 (3d Cir. N.J. 2004). Where the son cared for his mother before she entered a long-term care facility, the agency erred in imposing a penalty for assets transferred within the five-year look-back period because the transfer was exempt where the son provided care that exceeded normal personal support activities, and nothing in the regulation required the son to be the sole caregiver, to be unable to maintain full employment, or to finance all of the mother's care. A.M. v. Monmouth Cty. Bd. of Soc. Servs., 2021 N.J. Super. LEXIS 31 (2021). Denial of a judgment discharging a priority lien for reimbursement of Medicaid benefits against a decedent's estate was affirmed because despite having never exercising the elective share against the augmented estate of his wife during his lifetime, it was available to him and he was not excepted from N.J.S.A. 3B:8-1 since he was never divorced and the physical separation by residing in a nursing home was not by itself enough to prevent him from claiming an elective share. In re Estate of Brown, 448 N.J. Super. 252, 153 A.3d 242, , 2017 N.J. Super. LEXIS 8 (2017). Final agency decision properly affirmed the imposition of a transfer penalty upon a claimant's application for Medicaid benefits to pay for the cost of her nursing home care because a life care contract between herself and her daughter made as a lump sum advance payment to the daughter was not a transfer for fair market value. E.S. v. Division of Med. Assistance & Health Servs., 412 N.J. Super. 340, 990 A.2d 701, 2010 N.J. Super. LEXIS 47 (2010). Recipient of homecare assistance sold her home to her grandson, and kept a leasehold in an apartment in the house for the term of her life. As the nature of the recipient's leasehold interest was not explained by the lease or by extrinsic evidence, whether she received fair market value for her leasehold interest, and thus for the house itself, could not be determined from the record for purposes of determining her continued eligibility for homecare assistance benefits. B.D. v. Division of Med. Assistance & Health Servs., 397 N.J. Super. 384, 937 A.2d 980, 2007 N.J. Super. LEXIS 366 (App.Div. 2007). In determining a claimant's eligibility for benefits, the Director of the New Jersey Department of Human Services has the expertise to determine the significance and sufficiency of various types of asset transfers, and when the Director's findings are supported by credible evidence and correct legal principles, they are entitled to deference by a reviewing court. B.D. v. Division of Med. Assistance & Health Servs., 397 N.J. Super. 384, 937 A.2d 980, 2007 N.J. Super. LEXIS 366 (App.Div. 2007). Alimony does not constitute income received by a Medicaid recipient where the alimony is paid to a special needs trust created under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1396p(d)(4)(A) pursuant to a court order as part of divorce proceedings. Therefore, the New Jersey Medicaid program cannot reduce its contribution to a recipient's nursing home costs by the amount of alimony his or her ex-spouse pays to the special needs trust. J.P. v. DIVISION OF MED. ASSISTANCE & HEALTH SERVS., 392 N.J. Super. 295, 920 A.2d 707, 2007 N.J. Super. LEXIS 119 (2007). Decision of the Director of Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services (DMAHS), which upheld the imposition of a Medicaid transfer penalty based on an unequal equitable distribution to a non-institutionalized spouse of a Medicaid applicant in a bed and board divorce action, was reversed as there existed no regulation that authorized such a decision; furthermore, the DMAHS's in-house rule imposing such a penalty for a transfer of assets as equitable distribution of more than 50 percent to the non-institutionalized spouse was contrary to both New Jersey public policy and the law of equitable distribution. W.T. v. DMAHS, 391 N.J. Super. 25, 916 A.2d 1066, 2007 N.J. Super. LEXIS 59 (App.Div. 2007). Nursing home patient was eligible for Medicaid Only benefits because the patient's medical condition rendered those assets not accessible under N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.4(b)6, thereby the cash value of certain life insurance policies