Bigstock-Broken-Wedding-Rings-19863971 (1)

Does Your Trust Really Have Remarriage Protection?

As a lawyer practicing in the elder law and estate planning industry for 25 years, I'm always intrigued by what lawyers refer to as remarriage protections. Remarriage protection relates to the provisions that one puts in a trust to ensure after a spouse dies and a surviving spouse remarries (or cohabitates) that the underlying estate plan of the deceased spouse is honored and maintained. The truth is that trust systems in the estate planning industry have little, if any, remarriage language or protections. The general protection that trust systems provide for remarriage is that if a spouse remarries, they allow you to discontinue payments of interest or principal to that spouse, and that's usually limited to the context in a family or marital trust. Wow, that's remarriage protection?


Bigstock-Broken-Wedding-Rings-19863971 (1)Hardly. In the Lawyers with Purpose Client Centered Software (LWP-CCS) system, there are layers of remarriage protections available to the client. First and foremost, the trust system tracks all of the benefits granted to a surviving spouse as you design the plan and import data into the trust system. Second, the trust system tracks all of the authority that you give a surviving spouse as trustee, trust protector, etc. Third, the LWP-CCS system allows you to identify what your client considers to be “remarriage.” In our default definition, the language identifies that a spouse will be deemed to be remarried after cohabiting for one night. The software also allows you to customize your own definition of remarriage, and once that definition is triggered you are then allowed to customize which of the powers or benefits that you have granted a surviving spouse will be modified or eliminated, along with any conditions for reinstatement.

For example, if a surviving spouse has been named trustee, the software knows that and asks you if you want to remove the right of the surviving spouse to be trustee upon marriage. Secondly, the trust software tracks all beneficial interests of the surviving spouse, and if you elect to have remarriage restrictions, the software will show you all the different places where the surviving spouse has retained a right to benefit from the trust. It will also ask if you want to minimize or eliminate any of those benefits individually, not collectively. That is, you can pick and choose which ones stay and which ones go.

Does this seem too good to be true? Well, it is if you have regular software, but the LWP-CCS software has been designed around the needs of the client, not the lawyers. The good news is, once you identify the needs of the client, the software will put in the necessary legal language to accomplish the objectives that you have identified for the clients. This is what being a Lawyer with Purpose means, and this is what client-centered software is all about. Don't go it alone. Let Lawyers with Purpose show you how to do real remarriage protection planning for clients.

If you aren't a Lawyers With Purpose member and are even thinking about adding estate or elder law to your existing practice, or want to make your estate/elder law practice more efficient, join us in the room in Houston this October 24th and 25th. Click here for the full agenda and to discover more of what you'll get from this program!

David J. Zumpano, Esq, CPA, Co-founder Lawyers With Purpose, Founder and Senior Partner of Estate Planning Law Center

Bigstock-Blended-Family-Word-Cloud-105173693

How Do You Plan For Blended Families?

There's a great buzzword out there in estate planning called planning for “blended families.” The term “blended families” represents individuals who are married but have previous marriages or relationships that resulted in children. One example would be a second marriage in which the husband and wife have children from a previous marriage, or one does and one doesn't. The question becomes, how do you plan for these individuals so they can provide for each other but still be confident that in the end, their children or beneficiaries will get what's legally entitled to them?

The challenge with blended family planning is that the spouses “trust each other” to carry out their wishes. The problem is, life doesn't often work out that way. After the death of one of the clients, the relationship between the surviving spouse and the deceased spouse's family tends to become more remote and diminished. As a result, over time the surviving spouse may forget or no longer wish to follow the planning as originally intended, or may no longer deem it relevant based on the new circumstances. More importantly, even if the surviving spouse did wish to follow the original plan, circumstances may occur that put the assets in danger. The surviving spouse might need a nursing home, or might face a lawsuit, or might remarry to another individual who could gain power of attorney and modify the planning after the incapacity of the original surviving spouse. There are so many complications in blended families, but there doesn't have to be.


Bigstock-Blended-Family-Word-Cloud-105173693The Lawyers with Purpose Client-Centered Software (LWP-CCS) system is designed to plan for each client’s individual needs and goals, including blended families. The LWP-CCS has extensive provisions that allow designation of particular assets, allocated and separated at the death of the first spouse for the benefit of the surviving spouse under the terms and conditions that the clients agree to. This permits the surviving spouse to continue to benefit from the deceased spouse’s assets until the conditions are met for the next stage of the planning to occur. For example, in many of our trusts, clients elect to have a trust for the surviving spouse terminate upon the spouse's remarriage or another terminating event as identified by the couple. Although this seems complicated, it's actually easy when you ask your clients. They are pretty clear on what they want. They're just looking for some guidance on how to accomplish it.

Perhaps the greatest final significance of using the LWP planning solutions for blended families is to protect the deceased grantors' assets from the surviving spouse’s unintended or unforeseen creditors and predators. This by far has had the greatest impact for my personal clients over the last 25 years of my planning for them. Unfortunately, too many lawyers today use the standard boilerplate trust, and most trust systems in the industry do not permit attorneys to do any extensive planning once prepared for blended families without expensive post-merge modifications.

That's why Lawyers with Purpose is different. Because we focus on purpose first, the software has been designed to always consider the client's needs, goals and wishes first, then the software puts in the appropriate legal language to accomplish those objectives. Although it sounds counterintuitive, it's actually easy, fun and valuable to the client. I actually have clients laughing as we design their plans; do you? If you want to learn more about how Lawyers with Purpose can help you plan for blended families in ways you never knew existed.. consider joining us for THE estate planning event not to be missed!  

Member click to register here.

Non-members click to register here.

David J. Zumpano, Esq, CPA, Co-founder Lawyers With Purpose, Founder and Senior Partner of Estate Planning Law Center

Bigstock-Pupils-raising-hand-during-geo-83001707

Lessons from Braiterman

Well, here we go again. On July 12, a New Hampshire Trial Court ruled that an irrevocable trust was an available resource. Or did it? A careful examination of the Braiterman case really comes down to three issues. The first was an imaginary stretching of the "any circumstances" provision in Medicaid law. The second was an imaginary stretching of "trustee's powers," and the third, superfluous language added by the attorney that had no legal relevance to the trust document.

I believe, however, that the superfluous language had the greatest impact on this court to find a way to make the trust assets available.  The good news is that this case is neither precedent setting not universally applied. Let us take a look at the faulty (weak) holding. The crux of the court’s argument is that, under 42USC1396P(d)(3)(B), "if there are any circumstances under which proceeds from a trust could be made to or for the benefit of the applicant, then the irrevocable trust is deemed available for purposes of determining eligibility for Medicaid."  Interestingly, it was clear under the trust terms that there were not any circumstances under which the payment from the trust could be made available to the beneficiary applicant. In fact, the court highlighted that the language specifically said that the trustees cannot make any distributions of income or principal to the grantor.

 
Bigstock-Pupils-raising-hand-during-geo-83001707The court, however, focused on superfluous language in the trust stating that, if at any time during the lifetime of the grantor, the grantor could lose eligibility for benefit because of the existence of this trust, then it was the grantor's “request” that the trustee consider bringing action to terminate the trust and to distribute the trusts corpus to the beneficiaries (again, NOT the grantor). Continuing, the trust stated that the grantor “hoped” that the people who received the trust corpus would use it for her benefit. The superfluous language goes on explicitly to identify the grantor's disability, or need for income. The imaginary stretch by the court here is that, although the attorney added this language that the court hangs on, in fact, there's no legal authority to enforce it. Under most states’ laws, termination of an irrevocable trust requires the consent of not only the trustee, but also of the grantor and the residuary beneficiaries; state law determines whether an irrevocable trust can be terminated, not a trustee. The only authority granted to the trustee in this trust was to bring an action to terminate the trust and distribute it to the beneficiaries.

So there's a double faux pas here; first, there is a presumption that the trustee has the unilateral authority to terminate the trust. Second, there is an enormous leap by the court in deciding that, because the grantor added the language “hoping” for the beneficiaries to use the proceeds for her, that there in fact actually is a legal obligation or even a legal authority to consider it required, so as to make the assets declared available to the grantor. The mistake by the court here is that any access to the trust income or principal is NOT contained within the four corners of the trust, but rather is a stretch to what a beneficiary will choose to do with trust assets after receiving them (which, by the way, is no longer a trust asset!).

The court notes that in her capacity as trustee, the grantor had authority without limitation to "terminate the trust by distributing the principle and accumulating income of the trust fund if in her judgement she might lose eligibility to substantial cash benefits or medical or other services. Again, the court stretches and fills in this imaginary chasm with rationale that indicates that there's actually legal authority for the trustee to do this. In fact, the court alludes that the grantor not being named a trust beneficiary is not dispositive, and held that because there is "any circumstance" that would permit the grantor to get the proceeds, then it was countable. In this fact pattern, the court argued that, since it could be distributed to the children and there was no prohibition on the children to distribute it back to the grantor, the court could infer that there is a circumstance in which the grantor could benefit. This is troubling, as there is no basis, no background and legal support of language anywhere to support this other than the court's opinion.

So what does this case tell us? First and foremost, it affirms what we already know: that a lot of courts do not like Medicaid planning. And that's OK. Second, it tells us attorneys that adding superfluous language that does not relate to the legal provisions of the trust has absolutely no legal impact on the trust terms, but in every contrary case decided up to this point, including Braiterman, it is proven to be the words hung on by the court to disallow planning for people who engage in Medicaid planning. I have been a longtime advocate of Medicaid planning, but more importantly, proper Medicaid planning. When following the rules, individuals who give away their assets are subject to the lookback period and potential imposition of ineligibility based on any uncompensated transfers. The law anticipates this, provides for it, and has clearly stated it. The challenge here is when courts usurp the law and assume information that is not legal or based on legal principles. I fully expect this case to be overturned on appeal, but nonetheless in a state like New Hampshire, a more liberal state, anything is possible.

The good news is the Lawyers with Purpose Client Centered Software (LWP-CCS) system has specific language that would nullify the court's holding in this case. In addition, Lawyers with Purpose attorneys are trained never to add superfluous language that does not relate to the legal terms of the trust. It is when lawyers forget that trusts are legal documents and entities, much like an LLC, that we get cases such as Braiterman. For example, in an LLC operating agreement, would you allow the owners to have rights to pay their medical expenses if they went into a nursing home? Obviously it's silly, but a trust is no different; it's a separate legal entity and should be respected as such. Attorneys must ensure that all of the provisions and terms relate to authority of the trustee to administer the trust and make distributions to the intended beneficiaries, and should in no way ever suggest or provide that trust principal be available or used for the grantor if it is an irrevocable trust intending to exclude its assets from consideration for Medicaid eligibility.

Interestingly, on the same day this case was released, I was notified once again by an LWP member in Florida that the Florida Department of Medicaid upheld a Lawyers with Purpose trust that provided that the grantor was trustee and that all assets in the trust were deemed unavailable. So before we jump off any bridges based on the Braiterman case and give up our Medicaid practices, understand your jurisdictions, understand your job as the attorney and, as we focus on at Lawyers with Purpose, always be an advocate for your client using the law, and keep your superfluous language out of it.

Registration for THE estate and elder law event not to be missed is open!  Grab your seat today before early bird pricing ends on September 5th. Click here to register now.

David J. Zumpano, Esq, CPA, Co-founder Lawyers With Purpose, Founder and Senior Partner of Estate Planning Law Center

Bigstock-Legal-Law-Rules-Community-Just-94090013

Latest Release of LWP-CCS Software

The latest version of the Lawyers with Purpose Client-Centered Software (LWP-CCS) was recently released and can be downloaded by using the link emailed to all qualifying members. Instructions on how to install the update are included. Please contact Member Services if you have not received an email. Updates were made to the Medicaid and VA modules and the LWP-CCS forms; the changes are summarized below.

Medicaid Qualification

Statutory wartime dates for VA eligibility have been added to the MedQual Worksheet as a reference aid. Further changes were made to the Asset Risk Analysis to show the rate of loss to a nursing home when in a "crisis" situation. You may also notice that the termination language in the Personal Services Agreement has been simplified per member feedback.

We also updated and simplified the language of the Termination section in the Personal Services Agreement.


Bigstock-Legal-Law-Rules-Community-Just-94090013LWP-CCS Forms

There have been some state-specific changes to the form documents at the request of our state bar members.

We also updated the Illinois Health Care Power of Attorney.

VA Qualification and Application

As another quarter is coming to a close for 2016 without us hearing a peep regarding the proposed VA look-back period, changes to the VA module were minimal with this release. As done for the MedQual worksheet, wartime dates for VA eligibility were added to the VA HotDocs Interviews for convenient reference.

The most important update was the new version of the main application form for filing for veterans improved pension; namely the VA form 21-527EZ Application For Pension is now the 21P-527EZ. Although this is an important update due to the significance of this form and the need to use VA-prescribed forms, the actual changes were negligible, consisting only of the addition of the letter P to the form number and a new revision date of April 2016. Another VA form that was updated is the 24-0296 Direct Deposit Enrollment, which you may use to enroll in direct deposit of VA payments into a bank account.

Another change was made at a member’s suggestion regarding the healthcare provider statement that is generated either through the VA Intent to File Interview or the VA Formal Claim Interview to document certain medical expenses. This document was generating by default with the veteran’s name in the field, “The following services are provided to: _________.” This latest release has removed this default so that this field now remains blank and this form can be used for the veteran and/or the spouse as needed.

This last change illustrates how Lawyers with Purpose benefits from you, our community of members, in improving and developing our software. We are always open to any ideas that allow us to provide you with the most current, useful, and efficient tools for your firm. Always let us know how we can be better!

If you're a Lawyers With Purpose member and use Actionstep, the corresponding software release and separate instruction file is available for download now in the Software section of the members’ Lawyers with Purpose website at http://www.lwpmembers.com/posts/lwp-actionstep-hotdocs-integration. The changes in the Actionstep release are identical to those listed above.

If you want to learn more about our drafting software click here to schedule a live demo.

By Sabrina A. Scott, Paralegal, The Elder & Disability Law Firm of Victoria L. Collier, PC and Director of VA Services for Lawyers with Purpose.

Victoria L. Collier, Veteran of the United States Air Force, 1989-1995 and United States Army Reserves, 2001-2004. Victoria is a Certified Elder Law Attorney through the National Elder Law Foundation; Author of “47 Secret Veterans Benefits for Seniors”; Author of “Paying for Long Term Care: Financial Help for Wartime Veterans: The VA Aid & Attendance Benefit”; Founder of The Elder & Disability Law Firm of Victoria L. Collier, PC; Co-Founder of Lawyers with Purpose; and Co-Founder of Veterans Advocate Group of America.

ID-100249600

When the VA Wants Its Money Back: Handling a VA Overpayment Demand

Receiving mail from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) may be a source of excitement for some folks, particularly when they are waiting for news of an initial VA decision. However, once a claimant is getting the correct monthly benefit, correspondence from the VA is generally not good news. Unfortunately, there are times when the VA decides that benefits were awarded and paid in error, resulting in an overpayment demand from the VA’s Debt Management Center. The Debt Management Center (DMC) is a separate department from the Pension Management Center (PMC). The PMC may send you a decision letter explaining why a claimant’s entitlement has changed, but it is left to the DMC to issue the actual request for repayment if the change in entitlement has resulted in a so-called overpayment. This is done via a form letter punctuated by only a few personal details, such as the type of benefit, the amount of debt, and the date on which the VA plans to start withholding benefits until the amount overpaid is recouped. The horror is compounded by the convenient payment remittance stub at the bottom, by which the VA hopes you will pay in full within 30 days.


ID-100249600Overpayment demands occur for various reasons. The claimant’s income may have increased and/or there is a decrease in medical expenses, so he/she no longer qualifies for the same monthly benefit. Or the claimant may have received an inheritance that disqualified him/her completely, based on the VA treating the inheritance as both income and countable assets after a certain date, even though the claimant continued to receive a benefit. If there is indeed more income/less medical expenses than previously reported, consider submitting actual medical expenses for the same time period if sufficient to offset the discrepancy. However, just because the VA claims to have overpaid, that does not necessarily mean that the claim is accurate. Sometimes an overpayment demand is simply the result of a clerical error or the VA considering historical income and/or asset information that should be irrelevant post the effective date.

When you receive an overpayment notice from the DMC, you must generally respond in some way within 30 days of the date of the letter. Responding within this time frame will also ensure that any scheduled withholding action does not occur until after your response is considered by the VA. How you respond depends on whether the overpayment demand has merit and/or whether or not the claimant can repay the debt. If the claimant does owe the debt, the back of the form letter gives you four different ways to pay: by phone, by mail, online, and via Western Union Quick Collect. The DMC has its own toll-free number: (800) 827-0648. If you cannot afford to pay the entire debt at once, the VA is willing to make arrangements for repayment over time or even ultimately to grant a waiver of the debt, if the claimant does not have the means to repay at all.

Claimants may dispute a debt if it is not owed or dispute the amount of the debt if it is inaccurate. The form letter from the DMC should be accompanied by VA form 0748, which is a Notice of Rights and Obligations that explains the claimant’s options for appealing and requesting a waiver of a debt. If you dispute the debt, you must explain in writing why you dispute the validity of the debt or the amount of the debt. If you request a waiver of part or all of the debt, you must explain in writing either why you are not responsible for the debt or how collection of the debt would cause undue hardship. Claims of hardship should be documented by submitting a VA form 5655 Financial Status Report within 180 days, which the VA considers in deciding whether to waive the debt. Pursuant to 38 CFR §1.963, “Recovery of overpayments of any benefits made under laws administered by the VA shall be waived if there is no indication of fraud, misrepresentation, or bad faith on the part of the [claimant] and recovery of the indebtedness . . . would be against equity and good conscience.”

Finally, you must remember – having now dealt with the DMC – to consider whether you should also respond to the appropriate pension department. If an overpayment occurred because the VA made an erroneous decision, you would need to file a request for reconsideration or notice of disagreement with the Pension Management Center serving your particular state in order to start the appeal process. I would not count on the VA to consider your dispute of a debt as an appeal of the PMC’s decision.

By Sabrina A. Scott, Paralegal, The Elder & Disability Law Firm of Victoria L. Collier, PC, and Director of VA Services for Lawyers with Purpose.

Victoria L. Collier, Veteran of the United States Air Force, 1989-1995 and United States Army Reserves, 2001-2004. Victoria is a Certified Elder Law Attorney through the National Elder Law Foundation; Author of “47 Secret Veterans Benefits for Seniors”; Author of “Paying for Long Term Care: Financial Help for Wartime Veterans: The VA Aid & Attendance Benefit”; Founder of The Elder & Disability Law Firm of Victoria L. Collier, PC; Co-Founder of Lawyers with Purpose; and Co-Founder of Veterans Advocate Group of America.

Bigstock-Magnet-Character-And-Money-86853944

Income vs Asset Transfer Lookback: When the VA Questions Income Prior to the Effective Date

You may be aware that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) will be implementing a proposed three-year lookback period for asset transfers sometime in 2016. Until this rule becomes final, veterans and their surviving spouses can continue to transfer assets out of their name and become almost immediately eligible for VA pension under the asset standard. However, you may have already experienced the “income lookback,” which is when the VA questions income prior to the effective date of a claim. Today, I will explain why this occurs, whether it matters, and finally, how you respond. But first, let’s cover what determines the effective date of a claim.


Bigstock-Magnet-Character-And-Money-86853944What is the effective date?

The effective date is technically the date the VA receives the intent to file claim or the formal claim. If you file an intent to file claim or a formal claim on June 6, 2016, the effective date is June 6, 2016. However, actual payment for awarded claims begins the first of the month following the month in which the intent to file or the formal claim is filed. Thus, when we think of effective date, we are usually thinking of when payment begins. Therefore, if you file an intent to file claim or formal claim on June 6, 2016, the effective date for payment would be July 1, 2016.

Regardless of the effective date, there are situations in which the VA will consider retroactive months. A veteran can seek benefits for up to 12 months prior to the effective date if he/she was disabled and financially eligible at that time. Note that when you seek this, you should specifically include the citation in Title 38 CFR Sections 3.114 and 3.400 and provide income, asset, and medical expense information for the prior 12 months as well as for the current time period. A surviving spouse has up to a year after the death of the veteran to file a claim for death pension, and the VA will grant retroactively to the month of the veteran’s death. If he/she files after this one-year window, the effective date will be the first of the month following the month in which the intent to file or the formal claim is filed.

Why does the VA question income prior to the effective date?

The VA is supposed to explore potential retroactive benefits, or at least inform claimants of them. Although you might not expect the VA to go out of its way to find out if a claimant was owed benefits for any period of time before filing a claim, it can happen. I have seen death pension claims awarded back to the month of the veteran’s death, even though the surviving spouse was not eligible at that time, and despite the fact that we specifically requested a later effective date when he/she was eligible.

Questions regarding prior income generally arise because the VA cross-checks income submitted on the application for benefits (the VA forms 21P-527EZ and the 21-534EZ) with what is on record with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The VA started doing this in the year 2013 once it phased out the Eligibility Verification Report, which was the annual review of income and medical expenses to confirm VA eligibility. Because the VA is seeing historical information, the income reported to the IRS in prior years may be substantially more than what a claimant currently expects to make.

Does it matter if the VA questions income prior to the effective date?

If you are seeking retroactive benefits, then you should expect the VA to question income prior to the effective date, as well as assets and medical expenses, which, in this case, does not matter. Another possibility – and this does occur – is that by checking with the IRS, the VA discovers an income stream that was not reported to you and thus is not included in the claim. This is not necessarily intentional on anyone’s part but may be due to a family’s unfamiliarity with an incompetent claimant’s financial details. This can occur with irregular sources of income in particular. In this case it does matter, as you must now concede to the VA that there is additional income of which the family was not aware. If there is more income being currently received by your claimant than you knew about, then you might not have enough recurring medical expenses to offset this newly found income, and this could result in a partial award or denial. You may need to plan to file actual medical expenses annually with the VA in order to maximize your claimant’s pension benefit.

When it does really matter is when that income is no longer being generated as of the effective date (e.g. because interest-bearing assets were liquidated, spent down or transferred, because a retirement fund was withdrawn, because bonds were cashed, etc.) because the VA Adjudication Manual M21-1, V.iii.1.E.6.o on “Income Received Before the Effective Date of the Award” specifically states:

Do not count income received before the effective date of an original or new award. (For Survivors Pension cases, do not count income received between the effective date and the date of the Veteran’s death.) The effective date is the date a claimant is entitled to benefits without regard to 38 CFR 3.31.

And elsewhere the VA Adjudication Manual M21-1, V.i.3.A.3.c defines the “Reporting Period for Current-Law Pension” as:

Current-law pension income is based on 12-month annualization periods. After the initial year, income-counting periods for irregular income and medical expenses coincide with the calendar year. Income is reported on a calendar-year basis.

If the case involves … an original or reopened claim

Then … the initial annualization period extends from the date of pension entitlement through the end of the month that is 12 months from the month during which entitlement arose.

Finally, even the main application forms for veterans’ improved pension (the new VA form 21P-527EZ) and the surviving spouse’s death pension (VA form 21-534EZ) specifically request income as of the effective date for expected income such as dividends and interest.

How do you respond?

You should respond to all inquiries from the VA, but depending on your claimant’s particular scenario you must decide whether the appropriate response is to rebut or regroup. Regardless of the scenario, make sure to reply in a timely manner or request an extension. You are usually given at least 30 days to respond or the VA will go ahead and decide a claim, and that may mean a denial or an approval for a lesser amount, if they are considering prior, higher income. This does not mean that you have no recourse after the VA has issued such a decision. If you get a denial, you still have up to one year from the date of the denial letter to appeal. If you have an approval for a lesser amount, you have a little more flexibility, as the VA must consider any income/medical expense information as long as it is submitted within the calendar year following the year in which that income/medical expense occurred. For example, if I had a claim approved today for a lesser amount based on income that the claimant received in tax year 2015, then I would have until 12/31/2017 to submit a rebuttal of this information, and the VA must consider it.

If you decide that the VA’s inquiries into income prior to the effective date should be rebutted as immaterial to your client’s claim, then you can respond with the citations from the VA adjudication manual above and essentially state in your rebuttal that income prior to the effective date is irrelevant.

However, despite the VA’s own regulations, you may struggle to get them to accept this rebuttal, and they often still insist on evidence of termination/liquidation of any accounts that historically have generated more income than what is declared on the VA claim. In the interest of getting your client awarded his/her rightful pension sooner rather than later, you may choose the path of least resistance and obtain the requested documentation.

Nevertheless, the very real possibility that the VA may question income prior to the effective date may shape how your firm recommends that clients transfer assets. Consider closing accounts rather than transferring or renaming accounts to create a clean break. Go ahead and collect documentation about closed accounts so you will be prepared in anticipation of such an inquiry from the VA. You may even want to consider inserting a statement with VA formal claims that explains that expected income will decrease significantly as compared to prior years due to liquidating interest-bearing accounts to pay for increasing medical costs. Also you may want to anticipate issues by requesting the prior year’s tax return of any VA claimant so you can see what information the VA is likely going to get from cross-checking with the IRS.

After the proposed changes affecting pension benefits and transfers of assets become final, we expect that the VA will specifically request financial information prior to the effective date – specifically three years prior to the effective date. And because net worth under the proposed rule may include annual gross income, you’d better believe that the VA will continue questioning income received prior to the effective date. Only time will tell what the proposed lookback period will look like when finally implemented, and that will determine how we recommend that you respond to such inquiries in the future. Rest assured, however, that when that time comes, Lawyers with Purpose will be there to develop strategies and draft recommendations that you can use in your firm.

If you are interested in our monthly complementary VA Tech School webinar you can register here.  We host it on the first Wednesday of every month and it's open to both members and non-members.  Our next webinar is on Wednesday, August 3rd at 12 EST titled Big Brother is Watching: Fiduciary Accounting.  

By Sabrina A. Scott, Paralegal, The Elder & Disability Law Firm of Victoria L. Collier, PC and Director of VA Services for Lawyers with Purpose.

Victoria L. Collier, Veteran of the United States Air Force, 1989-1995 and United States Army Reserves, 2001-2004. Victoria is a Certified Elder Law Attorney through the National Elder Law Foundation; Author of “47 Secret Veterans Benefits for Seniors;” Author of “Paying for Long Term Care: Financial Help for Wartime Veterans: The VA Aid & Attendance Benefit;” Founder of The Elder & Disability Law Firm of Victoria L. Collier, PC; Co-Founder of Lawyers with Purpose; and Co-Founder of Veterans Advocate Group of America.By Sabrina A. Scott, Paralegal, The Elder & Disability Law Firm of Victoria L. Collier, PC and Director of VA Services for Lawyers with Purpose.

Bigstock--129963380

Stick to Your Guns Trusts: Impact of the Brady Act of 1993 on Incompetent VA Beneficiaries

“We have received information showing that because of your disabilities you may need help handling your Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits.” That is how the letter usually begins. A claimant may receive this letter after benefit approval, when the VA proposes a rating of incompetency, which usually means a fiduciary will need to be appointed to manage the VA funds. Generally, the letter does not come as a surprise – one can anticipate such a proposal when the doctor completes the VA form 21-2680 citing dementia or other illnesses that may affect the mind as a diagnosis and/or indicating that the claimant does not have the ability to manage his/her own financial affairs. However, you may not be aware of how the determination of incompetency, or the appointment of a representative payee for any reason, will impact your client’s Second Amendment rights. The VA spells it out for you in the same letter that proposes a finding of incompetency in the section titled “How This Decision Could Affect You”:


Bigstock--129963380A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any prohibition, pursuant to section 924(a)(2) of title 18, United States Code, as implemented by Public Law 103-159 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both. – VA Adjudication Manual M21-1, III.v.9.B.3.b.

In fact, once the finding of incompetency is finalized or a representative payee is appointed for any reason, including the applicant appointing one for convenience, the VA will forward to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) the name of the allegedly incompetent VA beneficiary to be placed in a database called the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Anyone attempting to legally purchase a firearm in the United States should have their name checked against the NCIS database by the gun dealer before the final sale.

Fortunately, the VA also informs you of how to seek relief from the prohibitions of the Brady Act:

If we decide that you are unable to handle your VA funds, you may apply to VA for the relief of prohibitions imposed by the Brady Act with regards to the possession, purchase, receipt, or transportation of a firearm. Submit your request on the enclosed VA Form 21-4138, Statement in Support of Claim. VA will determine whether such relief is warranted. – VA Adjudication Manual M21-1, III.v.9.B.3.b.

The NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (NIAA) amended the Brady Act so the VA is obligated to allow incompetent beneficiaries the opportunity to request relief from the latter act’s reporting requirements. The NIAA places the responsibility for administering the relief program on the VA. Note that relief from the reporting requirements of the Brady Act is not considered a “benefit” under Title 38. Therefore, principles common to the VA’s adjudication process that benefit the claimant, such as “benefit of the doubt” and “duty to assist,” do not apply. The burden of proof for these requests resides with the beneficiary, and the requests must be clear and explicit. The application for relief from these prohibitions is reviewed by a Veterans Service Representative (VSR) who must determine whether there is “clear and convincing evidence [showing] the circumstances regarding your disability and your record and reputation are such that you are not likely to act in a manner dangerous to yourself or others, and the granting of relief is not contrary to public safety and/or the public interest,” according to VA Adjudication Manual M21-1, III.v.9.B.4.e.

In order to be successful, the application for relief must include a statement from a primary mental-health physician assessing mental health status over the last five years, medical information addressing any mental health symptoms and whether or not the claimant is likely to act in a manner dangerous to himself/herself or to the public, and evidence of his/her reputation, through character witness statements, testimony, or other character evidence. The VA will also seek your signature on a consent form that allows them to run a criminal background check. VA decisions that deny relief are not subject to review by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. They are, however, subject to review in Federal District Court, and for this reason, all such decisions must contain a detailed explanation of the basis for denial.

To date, there has been no case pushed to the Supreme Court to determine if the actions of the VA are constitutional. David Goldman, a nationally recognized gun trust attorney, suspects it will likely take the involvement of the NRA or the Second Amendment Coalition to get a case heard before the Supreme Court on this issue.

Until that time, it is up to us to protect our clients and their firearms. In Henderson v. US (575 US ____ Docket No. 13-1487 (2015)), the SCOTUS held that a person not entitled under the federal law to possess firearms has not also lost the property right to the same. This decision makes gun trusts a vital tool. By placing the guns of a client who has been deemed incompetent into a gun trust, we can allow the client to maintain ownership of the guns the client wishes to protect. However, it is important to understand that the client cannot, under current rules, have actual possession of the firearms. This means the client cannot be the trustee of the gun trust and the firearms must not be accessible to the client. So, the trustee must lock the guns in a cabinet or move them to some other location the VA applicant cannot access. Failure to follow these rules can and has resulted in guns being seized from veterans.

Hopefully, this issue will get to the Supreme Court in the near future. However, in the interim, we need to proceed with caution in appointing representative payees in cases where it is not necessary for our clients with guns. When representative payees are necessary due to incompetence, the veteran may not maintain possession, but only ownership, of his firearms. The establishment of a gun trust under the correct guidelines can afford our clients the ability to maintain their guns.

If you want to learn more about becoming a Lawyers With Purpose member, click here to download our Membership Brochure and review all the benefits and tools available to our members.  

By Sabrina A. Scott, Paralegal, The Elder & Disability Law Firm of Victoria L. Collier, PC and Director of VA Services for Lawyers with Purpose.

Victoria L. Collier, Veteran of the United States Air Force, 1989-1995 and United States Army Reserves, 2001-2004. Victoria is a Certified Elder Law Attorney through the National Elder Law Foundation; Author of “47 Secret Veterans Benefits for Seniors”; Author of “Paying for Long Term Care: Financial Help for Wartime Veterans: The VA Aid & Attendance Benefit”; Founder of The Elder & Disability Law Firm of Victoria L. Collier, PC; Co-Founder of Lawyers with Purpose; and Co-Founder of Veterans Advocate Group of America.

Bigstock-boxing-gloves-18397469

In Unexpected Trust Fight, A Meaningful Victory

An individual entered the nursing home with no pre-plan. The daughter, the power of attorney, contacted Mike Goss’s office for a plan. As he has successfully done many times in the past, Mike created an asset protection plan for the new nursing home resident using an MIT trust. The penalty period was correctly calculated and a Medicaid Compliant Annuity was purchased to pay through the penalty.

This is where the “typical” part of Mike’s typically successful Medicaid application ends. Because, unlike countless other applications he had submitted using the same format and planning tools, this patient’s application was denied. It was denied under the premise that, because the patient could become the trustee, she therefore had access to the principal of the trust.


Bigstock-boxing-gloves-18397469At the desk review, documentation was submitted stating that the trust, under no uncertain terms, allows the trustee to be a principal beneficiary. It was further submitted, though not necessary, that although the woman could not ever be a beneficiary, she also could not be a trustee, as she was admitted to the nursing home in an incompetent state.

After losing at the desk review, Mike moved forward to the Administrative Law Judge. Surely when the case was placed in front of an attorney, it would be determined that the desk worker simply did not understand a trust that had full force of the law and had been submitted and approved by the Medicaid Agency many times.

In the interim, the Lawyers with Purpose team, headed by Dave Zumpano and LWP members from the state of Indiana, met to go over the legal arguments supporting the long use of the IPUG trust in Indiana. However, it was determined that in all likelihood this case would be overturned by the ALJ. The ALJ did not feel the same way. He ruled that the trust was an available resource because the grantor could be the trustee.

Mike was forced to file for judicial review of the denial, and the case was moved over to the FSSA attorney. Using the law review article written by Dave Zumpano, POMS and state rulings, Mike invested time writing a brief for the hearing. Months went by as the FSSA attorney “attempted” to get the records from the administrative hearing. Mike tried to negotiate with the FSSA attorney to no avail. Right before the hearing date, Mike was asked for an extension by the FSSA attorney, with the reasoning that they may be able to negotiate a settlement. A few weeks later, Mike was contacted and asked to write an Order. He had won the appeal with no judicial hearing – a year after his client applied for Medicaid.

Mike’s due diligence paid off and his client received the Medicaid benefits she was legally entitled to. His advocacy for his client not only got her on Medicaid but protected the MIT trust as a planning tool for all attorneys in his state moving forward. Had he not kept fighting for what the law allows, bad interpretation by a Medicaid desk worker could have closed an entire avenue of planning for countless applicants in the future. Thank you Mike Goss for being a tireless advocate for not only your clients, but for all elderly in your community and state.

If you want to learn more about becoming a Lawyers With Purpose member give us a little information about yourself. You will then be able to download the Membership Brochure and learn more about our membership benefit options.

Kimberly Brannon, Technical Legal & Software Trainer – Lawyers With Purpose

Bigstock-Awareness-Ribbon--Purple-19635656

World Elder Abuse Awareness Day

World Elder Abuse Awareness Day is certainly one we all wish did not require special attention on our calendars. Unfortunately, it does. Every year an estimated 5 million older Americans are victims of elder abuse, neglect, or exploitation. And that’s only part of the picture: Experts believe that for every case of elder abuse or neglect reported, as many as 23 cases go unreported. Elder abuse can take many forms: verbal, physical, financial. Today is the day we as advocates for the elderly can take a moment to remember a few steps we can take for our clients to discover and stop elder abuse.


Bigstock-Awareness-Ribbon--Purple-19635656First, we must listen to our clients. Clients are often brought into our office by their children or another family member. As part of our ethical practice, we should always take an opportunity to speak to our elderly clients alone, explain to them the confidential nature of our attorney-client relationship and allow them the opportunity to tell us any information they may not be comfortable disclosing in front of the person who brought them into the office. Affording our elderly clients the opportunity to confidentially trust in us can often bring feelings and issues to the table that could otherwise go unnoticed.

Second, we can recommend that caregivers find the necessary time to take care of themselves. Caregivers are full-time nurses, cooks, housekeepers, and sitters. Statistics show that a large percentage of elder physical abuse takes place because of caregivers feeling overwhelmed. We can gather information about caregiver support groups in our area and provide that list to the caregivers entering our office. Providing information and understanding to caregivers allows them to know that our offices are there for them when they reach a point where they feel they cannot continue on.

Third, we can monitor the trusts created for our clients as Trust Protectors. This is a wonderful way to use the LWP maintenance plans to benefit the clients we love. As Trust Protector we can assure that the assets our clients worked so hard for are being used as they intended and in a fashion that represents their best interests. When a trustee is abusing his or her authority, we can step in and protect the assets our clients have entrusted us to protect.

Finally, we can educate our communities. We can reach out to community groups and organizations and speak to them about the signs of elder abuse, the importance of caregivers’ own health and well-being, the standards Attorneys-in-fact and Trustees are held to, and what signs to look for in our loved ones who are being cared for outside of the home. We can arm clients and community members with the names of their local ombudsman and elder abuse agencies.

So today, I hope each of us takes the opportunity to think of one thing we can do to stop elder abuse. Wouldn’t it be nice if this was a day we never have to “celebrate” again?

If you want to learn more about becoming a Lawyers With Purpose member, click here and give us a little information about yourself. You will then be able to download the Membership Brochure.

Kimberly Brannon, Esq., Software and Legal-Technical Trainer – Lawyers With Purpose

LWP.FBSizing

The Nuts and Bolts of VA Accreditation

There are three categories of individuals whom the VA will accredit: representatives of VA-recognized Veterans Service Organizations (VSOs), independent claims agents, and private attorneys. The route to accreditation differs for these various categories, but the governing department of all accreditation matters is the VA’s Office of General Counsel (VAOGC). It is this department that handles any questions, comments, and requests for correction of information related to accreditation as well as receiving any complaints regarding misconduct or incompetent representation.