Page 218

Page 8 of 11 § 10:71-4.11 Trusts Notes Chapter Notes Case Notes Medicaid applicants challenging state's treatment of community spouse annuity trusts (CSATs) as countable assets in determining Medicaid eligibility lacked standing to challenge state's undue hardship procedures for otherwise ineligible claimants as untimely, where, although state did not have undue hardship procedures in place before action was brought, state offered applicants the opportunity to apply for undue hardship hearings, and applicants chose not to seek such hearings, thereby suffering no injury related to lack of timeliness provision. Johnson v. Guhl, 357 F.3d 403. 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). Medicaid applicant who transferred all of her assets to a trust in 2005 was not properly subjected to a penalty on Medicaid eligibility based on those transfers because they occurred well before the commencement of the five-year look-back provision and thus could not be the basis of a penalty. That said, however, the language of the trust was such that the applicant was entitled to income from the trust with the result that a penalty based on the value of the income foreclosed to the applicant was properly imposed. A.M. v. DMAHS et al., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 9252-2017, 2018 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1297, Final Agency Determination (May 31, 2018). Agency was wrong to include, in a married couple's resources, assets that in fact were transferred to a valid, irrevocable trust prior to the commencement of the 60-month Medicaid eligibility look-back period because they were "unavailable" to the couple within the meaning of current law. C.F. v. Hudson Cnty. Dep't of Family Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 11517-17, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1314, Final Agency Determination (December 20, 2017). Medicaid application made on behalf of a married couple should not have been denied on the ground of excess resources. The resources that the agency deemed to be "excess" in fact were transferred to a valid, irrevocable trust prior to the commencement of the 60-month eligibility look-back period and thus were "unavailable" to the couple within the meaning of governing regulations. C.F. v. Hudson Cnty. Dep't of Family Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 11517-17, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 824, Initial Decision (November 9, 2017). Assets held in a trust of which a Medicaid applicant was both a grantor and a co-trustee were not "countable assets" for the purpose of determining the applicant's eligibility because the trust expressly provided that the applicant could not receive any amounts from the trust under any circumstances. Also, the trust was created more than ten years prior to the date on which the applicant sought Medicaid benefits. M.K. v. Morris Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 05523-17, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 347, Initial Decision (May 25, 2017). Medicaid applicant who had transferred all of her assets into an irrevocable trust of which she was the beneficiary was ineligible for Medicaid because the assets held in the trust were properly considered to be available to the applicant because the trustee thereof, who was the applicant's son, was authorized to pay trust assets to or for the benefit of applicant, within the result that all of the assets held therein were properly treated as "available" to the applicant. Her resources thus well exceeded the ceiling for Medicaid. D.B. v.Atlantic Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 14084-16, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 53, Initial Decision (January 27, 2017).