
<div style="text-align: right;"><a target="_blank" href="pdfs/featured_posts/2012.3.15.-transfer-life-estate.pdf">Download PDF</a><a href="pdfs/featured_posts/2012.3.15.-transfer-life-estate.pdf"><img src="images/stories/pdf-icon.png" alt="pdf-icon" height="15" width="15" /></a></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong><i><span style="font-size: 12pt;" new="New" lang="EN-GB"> </span></i></strong></p>
<p><strong>Fimon v. Commissioner of Minnesota Department of Human Services (Minn. App. Ct., No. A11–561, Oct. 24, 2011).</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Facts:</strong> In May of 2003,  Mr. Rodney Fimon executed a deed that transferred the ownership of his  residence to his two sons and himself as joint tenants.  By owning the  property jointly with both of his sons, Mr. Fimon maintained an  ownership interest in the residence.  Over six years later, in July of  2009, Mr. Fimon prepared a subsequent deed, this time transferring his  remaining interest in the residence to his two sons and reserving a life  estate for himself.  He claimed that the 2009 deed was prepared in  order to correct the 2003 deed; however, a life estate ownership (as  opposed to the former joint tenancy ownership) is considered an exempt  asset for the purposes of Medicaid eligibility.  Several months later,  Mr. Fimon applied for Medicaid benefits, and he was denied.  The state  of Minnesota determined that the transfer of the residence formerly  owned as a joint tenant, without compensation from his sons, was an  uncompensated transfer, and therefore the state imposed a penalty period  on Mr. Fimon.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Mr. Fimon appealed this decision,  arguing that the 2009 deed was prepared in order to correct the 2003  deed.  The state denied the appeal, and the trial court affirmed the  state’s decision. Mr. Fimon then appealed to the Minnesota Court of  Appeals.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Court’s Decision: </strong> The  Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court,  determining that the evidence presented supported the notion that Mr.  Fimon transferred his joint tenancy interest to his sons for less than  fair market value, and retained a life estate interest because such  ownership is an exempt asset for the determination of Medicaid benefits.   Since there was no viable evidence that the initial 2003 deed was  intended to reserve a life estate for Mr. Fimon, the subsequent deed had  the effect of changing his interest in the property, rather than simply  correcting a clerical error.  This penalty period may have been avoided  if Mr. Fimon had consulted an elder law attorney and properly planned  for his Medicaid eligibility prior to applying for benefits.</p>