Guardianships

March 6, 2013

New York Guardianships End Upon the Death of the Incapacitated Person

New York Guardianship Attorneys are familiar with Article 81 of the Mental Hygiene Law (“MHL”) which provides the statutory provisions governing Guardianships in New York. When a person is determined to be incapacitated and a Guardian is appointed for property management or personal needs, the Court will issue an Order and Judgment specifying the Guardian’s duties and powers. Thereafter, the County Clerk will issue a Commission which is the formal certification of the Guardian’s appointment.

A Guardianship is generally ended upon the death of the incapacitated person. The Court Order and Judgment usually sets forth the procedures that are to be followed when the incapacitated person dies. These requirements typically re-state portions of the MHL law. For example, MHL 81.44 entitled “Proceedings upon the death of an incapacitated person”, contains a number of requirements including that within twenty (20) days after the incapacitated person dies a Guardian must send a statement of death to the Court examiner and the estate personal representative. Also, within 150 days of death the Guardian must serve a statement of assets and deliver all guardianship property to the estate personal representative.

In addition to the requirements of MHL 81.44 other sections of the law also relate to post-death procedures. MHL 81.21(a)(14) allows a Guardian to pay funeral expenses for the incapacitated person and MHL 81.21 (a)(20) gives the power to “defend or maintain any judicial action or proceeding to a conclusion until an executor or administrator is appointed.”

As stated in MHL 81.44, the Guardian is required to prepare and file a final report or accounting. As can be seen, accepting an appointment as Guardian involves a great deal of responsibility. Both before and after the death of the incapacitated person, the Guardian must maintain detailed reports to be filed with the Court regarding the person’s assets, income, expenses and general welfare. When an incapacitated person dies, all of this information transfers over to the estate representative who must review the Guardian’s transactions and determine whether to provide final approval or acceptance of the Guardian’s conduct. If the estate representative, such as an Executor or Administrator, feels that the Guardian did not act properly, objections can be filed to the Guardianship Accounting and the Court will determine whether any corrections or other remedy is required.

Guardianship and estate proceedings often interconnect especially since many Article 81 Guardianship matters concern older individuals who have become disabled due to physical illness or other conditions such as dementia. As a Guardianship and Estate Lawyer I have represented individuals involved in all of these types of proceedings. Sometimes my clients have been involved in Guardianship proceedings and then have requested that I assist with representation in probate or administration matters after the incapacitated person has died.

February 20, 2013

New York Incapacitated Persons Must Be Given Proper Legal Notice

by Jules M. Haas

New York Court proceedings involving Incapacitated Persons require careful scrutiny by the Court. When a person who lacks capacity is a party to a legal action such as a defendant or respondent, it is imperative that such person’s rights are protected since their ability to defend themselves is impaired.

In the typical Guardianship Proceeding under Article 81 of the Mental Hygiene Law (“MHL”), the Court will appoint either a Court Evaluator or an attorney to represent the Alleged Incapacitated Person (“AIP”). Sometimes the Court will appoint both an attorney and a Court Evaluator. MHL Section 81.10 entitled “Counsel” sets forth the circumstances in which an attorney will be appointed by the Court for the AIP. MHL 81.09 entitled “Appointment of Court Evaluator,” discusses such appointment. While a Court Evaluator does not act as the attorney for an AIP, the Evaluator will interact with the AIP and perform an investigation for the Court and can, among other duties, determine whether the Court should be informed to appoint an attorney for the AIP. All in all, the MHL statutes provide for a number of avenues to insure that the AIP is protected in the Court proceedings.

Serious issues arise, however, when a person who is suffering from an incapacity becomes involved in Court proceedings that are not covered by the MHL. For example, it is not uncommon for such a person to be ill and hospitalized or affected by dementia or Alzheimer’s disease. Due to these types of circumstances, a person may forget, or be unable, to pay bills such as their rent or mortgage. Non-payment of these items will eventually result in lawsuits for eviction or foreclosure. Unfortunately, someone who is sued by a landlord or mortgage company may have no one around to help them or to seek the appointment of an Article 81 Guardian. In such cases the impaired person is completely vulnerable and often unable to defend themselves in an ordinary eviction or foreclosure action. In these cases if the Court is aware of a person’s disability the Court has the authority to appoint a limited guardian to protect a person’s interest in the particular lawsuit. Section 1201 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules allows a Court to appoint a Guardian ad Litem for an adult person who is “incapable of adequately prosecuting or defending his rights.”

In many instances the Court may be unaware of a person’s condition since the person, due to lack of understanding or ability, merely defaults and does not appear before the Court to represent his interests. In a recent case entitled Financial Freedom Acquisition LLC v. Evelyn L. Jackson, the Honorable Charles J. Markey (Supreme Court, Queens County), in a decision dated December 24, 2012 and reported in a New York Law Journal on January 29, 2013, dismissed a foreclosure lawsuit against an individual who had been in a nursing home at the time of the Summons and Complaint were allegedly served on her. After an extensive investigation by the Court appointed Guardian ad Litem, the Court found that the property owner lacked the mental capacity to understand the Court papers and it was questionable whether the Court papers were properly served upon the homeowner in the nursing home.

As a New York Guardianship Attorney, I have represented many clients involved in Article 81 proceedings. Sometimes, these proceedings are precipitated by other Court actions such as landlord/tenant evictions or foreclosure lawsuits that require the appointment of a Guardian to help protect the rights of an AIP. In these matters, it may be that multiple Court actions are occurring at the same time and quick action is needed so that an AIP’s home is not lost through no fault of their own.

January 8, 2013

New York Guardianship Laws Can Provide a Safety Net for Elderly Individuals

by Jules M. Haas

New York Guardianship Laws are contained in Article 81 of the Mental Hygiene Law (MHL). These statutory provisions are utilized in many situations where a person in need is Alleged to be Incapacitated. Quite often the Alleged Incapacitated Person (“AIP”) is elderly and is suffering from the effects of a sudden medical condition such as a stroke or cardiac arrest or the long term deterioration of mental capacity due to dementia.

Whatever the circumstances may be, the family or friends of an elderly individual who loses the ability to attend to Activities of Daily Living, can follow the procedures outlined in Article 81 and attempt to have a Guardian appointed. New York Guardianship attorneys provide guidance to their clients who want to petition the Court for the appointment of a Guardian of the Person or Guardian for Property Management.

The Guardianship law provides a sort of safety net for persons lacking capacity, particularly in the case of the elderly. MHL Section 81.06 entitled “Who may commence a proceeding”, allows a Guardianship Petition to be commenced by just about anyone who has a concern about the AIP including anyone who resides with the AIP and “a person otherwise concerned with the welfare of the person. . . .” While petitions for Guardianship are usually commenced by family members, the proceedings are sometimes started by a hospital, a nursing home or a governmental agency such as the New York City Department of Social Services where Adult Protective Services provides community intervention. By having an expansive list of individuals and entities that can intercede on behalf of an AIP, there is a greater possibility that an AIP can receive Court intervention and protection particularly where no family member exists or the AIP’s family will not become involved.

A recent article in FoxNews.com published on December 28, 2012 describes the situation of the elderly in China where the national legislature amended its laws to require that adult children visit their elderly parents “often” or run the risk of being sued by the parent. According to the article, the law was instituted due to a number of factors including increased elderly population in China where the social safety net is lacking and there is a limit on family size which creates a large financial burden for elderly care on just a single child.

One can only imagine the plethora of lawsuits that would deluge the Courts if such a law was enacted in New York. While Guardianship proceedings in New York may be formalistic by requiring Court papers and hearings in front of a Judge, the proceedings do provide a process to protect elderly persons from harm due to incapacity. Of course, Estate Planning prior to incapacity in the form of a Health Care Proxy, Living Will, Living Trust and Last Will is always the best course to follow in order to avoid the need for a Guardianship.

December 12, 2012

New York Surrogate’s Court Proceedings May Require A Guardian Ad Litem

by Jules M. Haas

The New York Probate Lawyer Blog has discussed many of the proceedings that can arise in the Surrogate’s Court such as the Manhattan Surrogate’s Court and Nassau Surrogate’s Court. Each of the counties in New York State has its own Surrogate’s Court.

The various proceedings include Probate Proceedings, Intestate Administration Proceedings, Accounting Proceedings, Kinship Proceedings, and various other Miscellaneous Proceedings such as proceedings to revoke the appointment of a fiduciary.

In order for the Court to determine the issues in the cases that are filed, the Court must be certain that all parties interested in the case have received a proper notice and have had an opportunity to appear before the Court and protect their interests. Very often, the Notice that a party receives is a Citation or an Order and Show Cause. These Notices must be properly served on a party and provide information as to the date, time and place of the Court hearing.

It is not uncommon in many cases that one of the parties may not be legally capable to protect their interests or appear in Court. An infant (i.e., someone under age 18) or a person who is incapacitated cannot act for his or her own welfare. When these situations arise, there are a number of avenues that can be followed so that the incompetent party can participate in the Court proceeding.

With regard to an infant, he or she may appear by a Court appointed guardian of his or her property. See Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act (SCPA) Section 402. This section also provides that an incapacitated person may appear by a Court appointed guardian. Article 81 of the Mental Hygiene Law provides an extensive procedure for the appointment of a Guardian of the person and property for an incapacitated person.

When an infant or other disabled person has not had a Guardian appointed to represent them or when the Court feels that such Guardian cannot adequately represent them, the Court can appoint a Guardian ad Litem. SCPA 403 provides for the appointment of a Guardian ad Litem selected by the Court but also provides a procedure whereby the Guardian ad Litem can be nominated by an infant over 14 years old or his parent or guardian. Of course, such nomination is subject to approval and appointment by the Court.

In a recent case entitled a Will of Nanaline Duke, decided by Manhattan Surrogate Nora Anderson on November 28, 2012 and reported in the New York Law Journal on December 10, 2012, the Court allowed the family members to nominate the Guardian ad Litem.

Typically, the Guardian ad Litem will act as the representative of the person under disability and protect his or her interest in the Court case. SCPA 405 provides the procedure for the Guardian ad Litem to be paid for services rendered.

Estate Litigation involves many complex issues and procedures. As a New York Estate Lawyer I have represented many clients where the Court has appointed a Guardian ad Litem to represent a party’s interest. I have also acted as the attorney for Guardians who are acting on behalf of incapacitated individuals. For example, in a situation where a decedent dies intestate and his or her sole heir is incapacitated, I have petitioned the Court to appoint the sole heir as an Article 81 Guardian who then had the authority to act as the Administrator of the decedent’s estate.

November 21, 2012

New York Gifts Made Prior to Death Are Often the Subject of After Death Disputes

by Jules M. Haas

The New York Probate Lawyer Blog has posted many items concerning Estate Litigation. Litigation in New York Estates in common in the context of a Will Contest where a distributee (next of kin) such as a child is either completely excluded from the Will or left a bequest that is less than expected. Other typical situations are where a Will disposes of an estate to unrelated third parties such as a caretaker or friend. Allegations concerning undue influence, lack of testamentary capacity or duress usually result from such occurrences. Where a Will is contested, the focus is not only on the decedent but also on the witnesses to the Will and the attorney draftsperson who can testify and shed light on the circumstances surrounding the creation of the estate plan and the Will execution process.

However, not all estate disputes concern bequests that emanate from a Will after death. Many times controversy surrounds inter vivos or lifetime gifts that are made by a decedent. Such gifts can be subject to attack based upon similar grounds of lack of capacity. Often, the lifetime gifts appear inconsistent with, and actually can destroy, an estate plan that the decedent set forth in a Last Will or Living Trust document.

Gift litigation can take place in different forms. Sometimes, prior to a person’s death, an Article 81 Guardianship proceeding may be commenced due to a person’s incapacity. Section 81.29 of the New York Mental Hygiene Law gives the Court the power to revoke transfers that were made by an incapacitated person. In situations that come to light after a decedent’s death, an estate fiduciary, such as Executor or Administrator, can seek to recover assets for the estate where the life-time transfer appears to be improper. Proceedings for the turn-over of assets are provided in New York Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act Section 2103.

An estate fiduciary has the responsibility to attempt to marshal and collect all of the assets that rightfully belong to the decedent. Demonstrating that a person lacked the capacity to make a certain lifetime gift is not easy. An example of the difficulty in prevailing with such a claim is shown in the recent case of Estate of Magda Cordell McHale, decided by Surrogate Barbara Howe of Erie County on September 28, 2012 and reported in the New York Law Journal on October 9, 2012.

In McHale, a beneficiary under the decedent’s Last Will objected to the fiduciary accounting due to the failure to include certain charitable gifts the decedent made shortly before her death. After a hearing the Court concluded that the decedent had both the “intent” and “capacity” to make the pre-death gift.

Cases such as McHale present many difficult issues involving estate settlement and fiduciary responsibility. I have represented individual family members who have felt that such pre-death gifts were the result of undue influence. I have similarly defended individuals who have received pre-death gifts where assertions have been made that such gifts were the result of undue influence. In all cases, it is important to review the history of the decedent, the expressions of intent that may have been made and the relationships been the various parties in order to have a full and clear picture about the proprietary of the disputed transfer.

November 14, 2012

New York Article 81 Guardianship Proceedings Can Arise in Housing Proceedings

by Jules M. Haas

New York Guardianship proceedings can be found to be an appropriate remedy in varied situations. Typically, the Article 81 Guardianship is associated with an elderly person suffering from an illness such as dementia or Alzheimer’s disease or a person who has suffered a severe physical event such as a stroke or heart attack. These situations are a garden variety basis for the appointment of a Guardian for property management and personal needs.

New York Guardianship attorneys, however, are familiar with the many other situations in which a Guardian may be needed. For example, in many instances, younger individuals may be incapacitated due to mental or physical disabilities that are birth related. In these situations, a Guardian may be necessitated not only for personal needs but also to handle monetary awards or funds the person may be entitled to due to a settlement from a lawsuit. The Guardianship Court is often asked to allow the establishment of a Supplemental Needs Trust to hold these funds so that the incapacitated person does not lose the benefit of governmental programs such as Social Security Disability or Medicaid.

Many guardianship cases also involve issues relating to the housing of the person who is incapacitated. Such person may live in a rental apartment or even own a cooperative apartment. Due to the person’s incapacity, the rent or maintenance due on the apartment may go unpaid and subject the person to possible eviction or termination of their leasehold interest.

Other events that may result in eviction proceedings or lease terminations are where the tenant creates a nuisance by engaging in loud or abusive conduct or exhibits Collyers Syndrome which is the excessive hoarding and accumulation of items in the apartment. These activities create a climate where both the incapacitated individual and other tenants in the building are at risk.

When a person is exhibiting the above described behavior, the building management may commence eviction proceedings or, sometimes, contact Adult Protective Services of the New York City Human Resources Administration to intervene. APS will attempt to provide the tenant with assistance, if possible.

A Manhattan Guardianship lawyer, Queens Guardianship lawyer or Brooklyn Guardianship lawyer who represents a family member attempting to obtain appointment as a Guardian,
can ask the Guardianship Judge to issue a stay or injunction to stop the eviction proceedings of the incapacitated person until a Guardian has been appointed. Such relief is usually granted by the Court.

The New York Probate Lawyer Blog has discussed in previous posts that a Guardian will be appointed by the Court if the Court determines by “clear and convincing evidence” that a person is incapacitated. New York Mental Hygiene Law (“MHL”) section 81.02. When a Court is considering the case, it will review the ability of the person to manage activities of daily living such as “money management”, “grooming”, and “housing”. MHL section 81.03 (h). Therefore, when a person fails to pay rent or creates a nuisance or dangerous condition in an apartment, such activity is evidence of incapacity.

I have represented many clients who have petitioned to be Guardians in situations where their friends or relatives are on the verge of eviction or lease termination due to failure to pay rent or creating a nuisance condition. In these cases, quick action and Court filings are often needed to obtain a stay of the eviction and prevent the loss of the incapacitated person’s apartment. Once appointed, a Guardian is usually able to pay the back rent or correct the nuisance condition so that the apartment which is the incapacitated person’s home can be retained.

October 17, 2012

New York Estates and Guardianships May Involve Landlord-Tenant Proceedings

by Jules M. Haas

Many New York Estates and New York Guardianships contain assets in the form of real estate such as single or multi-family homes. Other possible assets can also include a condominium or cooperative apartment. These properties are a valuable, and many times the most valuable, asset owned by a decedent or an incapacitated person.

Problems often arise when the estate Executor or Administrator or Article 81 Guardian need to sell these assets to make a monetary distribution to beneficiaries or to pay expenses. Frequently, there are other persons who are living in these properties and remain there after the appointment of the fiduciary and they refuse to vacate the premises to allow the property to be marketed and sold. Persons who may be living in a house or apartment can range from children of the decedent or the incapacitated person to third party friends.

When a situation arises requiring the removal of a person from property as described above, the most common procedure is to file a Summary Eviction proceeding in the County where the property is located. This is the most common and expeditious method especially when dealing with non-relative occupants. For example, if the decedent had a Queens Probate or Brooklyn Probate and left a house in such County, the eviction proceeding would be filed in the Landlord-Tenant Part of the New York City Civil Court in such County.

Landlord-Tenant proceedings can be complicated and it is a good practice to obtain legal guidance from an attorney with experience in these matters. I have represented many individuals in Landlord-Tenant cases throughout New York. In an eviction case, there is usually an initial Notice sent to the occupant advising him or her to vacate by a certain date or Court proceedings will then be commenced. If the person fails to vacate as demanded in the Notice, a proceeding is filed in the Court to have the person evicted.

While eviction proceedings are “Summary” in nature, meaning that the process to have a Judge hear and determine a case is streamlined, the procedural aspects of these cases usually result in many adjournments and extensions. The ultimate consequence is that the Estate Administration or Settlement can be delayed for many months until the eviction process is completed.

In the Guardianship setting, a reverse scenario may occur. When a person becomes incapacitated they may be unable to pay the rent on the apartment where they live. Due to this non-payment of rent, the landlord may start an eviction proceeding against an incapacitated person who may be unable to defend himself or herself until a Guardian is appointed. In such situations, when a petition for Guardianship is initially filed with the Court, the Court may issue an Order Staying or putting on hold the eviction case until a Guardian is appointed who can either pay rent or otherwise defend the incapacitated person’s interest. Mental Hygiene Law section 81.23 provides that the Guardianship Court has the power to grant such a provisional remedy. There have been many instances when I have represented persons to be appointed as an Article 81 Guardian when I have obtained this type of relief and prevented the incapacitated person from being evicted from his or her home.

The ownership of real estate and tenancy rights relating to Estate and Guardianship proceedings can be very complicated and involve very valuable interests. As a New York Guardianship and New York Estate and Trust Lawyer, I have helped my clients recognize and deal with these issues.

September 12, 2012

New York Guardianship Proceedings Concern Guardianship for Personal Needs and Property Management

by Jules M. Haas

New York Guardianship Lawyers are often asked by clients as to the type of Guardianship that is needed concerning an alleged incapacitated person (“AIP”). The New York Probate Lawyer Blog has discussed many instances where the Court has appointed a guardian for both the person and property of the AIP. In fact, in a Manhattan Guardianship, Queens Guardianship, Brooklyn Guardianship or any other county, the Court typically appoints the same person as both property management and personal needs guardian. New York Mental Hygiene Law (MHL) Section 81.22 concerns personal needs powers and Section 81.21 concerns property management.

While most Guardianship proceedings are initiated by a petition filed by a family member such as a spouse or child, many times the guardianship case is started by a hospital or nursing home. Sometimes, the local social services department starts the case after it receives information from Adult Protective Services that a person may be at risk.

A nursing home or hospital may file a Guardianship petition with the Court because a family member fails or refuses to do so and the institution needs to be paid. Payment may require a Guardian to either access the AIP’s assets or make an application for Medicaid.

The situation described above presented some interesting issues in a Long Island Guardianship case recently. In Matter of Restaino, decided by Justice Arthur M. Diamond (Supreme Court, Nassau County), on August 29, 2012 and reported in the New York Law Journal on September 7, 2012, an extended care facility filed a Nassau County Guardianship case seeking to be appointed only as property management special guardian for property so it could apply for Medicaid for the AIP to pay for the AIP’s care. It was the facilities’ view that it did not need to ask the Court for the appointment of a personal needs Guardian since the Family Healthcare Decisions Act would provide a mechanism for the AIP’s son or the facility to make health care decisions for the AIP.

The FHCDA came into existence in 2010 and provides a priority list of persons who would have authority to make health care decisions for incapacitated patients.

After reviewing the FHCDA the Court determined that the appointment of a personal needs Guardian was necessary since the act did not provide the extensive authority for the decision maker and protection for the AIP that was given to a personal needs Guardian. The Court ultimately appointed the extended care facility as special Guardian of the property and the AIP’s son as Guardian of the person.

As a Guardianship attorney, I work closely with my clients who are family members or friends of an AIP to determine the best course for having the Court appoint a Guardian. While sometimes there is a contested Guardianship, most often, families and friends pursue Guardianship so that the AIP’s personal and property affairs can be kept in order and decisions can be made in the best interest of the person who is incapacitated.

August 1, 2012

A New York Alleged Incapacitated Person Cannot Be Forced to Testify

by Jules M. Haas

A New York Guardianship proceeding requires a hearing before the Court. Mental Hygiene Law (MHL) section 81.11 states, in part, that “a determination that the appointment of a guardian is necessary for a person alleged to be incapacitated shall be made only after a hearing.”

MHL Section 81.02 provides that the appointment of a Guardian must be based upon “clear and convincing evidence.” Typically, at such hearings, individuals who have had personal contact with the alleged incapacitated person (“AIP”) can testify as to their observations as to the AIP’s ability to engage in activities of daily living. Such testimony can also relate to various events that have occurred concerning the AIP such as the AIP forgetting where he or she lived or experiencing hallucinations. These types of events may indicate a loss of capacity.

The guardianship attorney for the petitioner usually calls these witnesses to testify in Court and can present other evidence in the form of documents that may show incapacity such as unusual transfer of assets. Of course the AIP has a right to oppose the petitioner’s request for Guardianship. As provided in MHL 81.11 the AIP can call his or her own witnesses, be represented by an attorney and cross examine witnesses.

In some cases, especially where there are few third party witnesses to the AIP’s activities, a petitioner may want to have the AIP testify to demonstrate to the Court that the AIP lacks capacity. By using in-court testimony, the petitioner can try and show that the AIP lacks the ability to understand or appreciate his or her medical or personal needs or is unable to demonstrate the ability to recall or handle finances. These situations have resulted in a controversy as to whether the AIP, like a criminal defendant, has the right to refuse to testify against him or herself.

The recent case of Matter of G.P., decided by Judge James D. Pagones of the New York State Supreme Court, Dutchess County on July 26, 2012, involved this issue. Judge Pagones determined that since the appointment of a Guardian resulted in the loss of certain individual freedoms and liberties, such as making medical decisions and determining where to live, an AIP cannot be “compelled to testify as a witness for the petitioner….”

When representing a petitioner in a Guardianship proceeding, particularly where the Guardianship is contested, I work closely with the client to determine the witnesses who can best tell the Court, based upon personal knowledge, about the AIP’s ability to handle their personal affairs and property management. The decision in Matter of G.P. demonstrates that a petitioner cannot rely on just presenting the AIP to the Court, but must have competent independent witnesses to meet the “clear and convincing” proof required for a Guardianship appointment.

July 26, 2012

New York Guardianship Proceedings Also Involve Payments from a Supplemental Needs Trust

by Jules M. Haas

The New York Probate Lawyer Blog has had many posts regarding issues and requirements of an Article 81 Guardianship Proceeding. These proceedings involve a determination as to whether an individual is incapacitated and, if so, the appointment of an appropriate Guardian.

The determinations that are made by the Court involve many different persons which may include the alleged incapacitated person; a petitioner (usually a family member); and a Court Evaluator. In some cases third parties are involved such as a Nursing Home, Adult Protective Services, New York State Mental Hygiene Legal Service and Medicaid.

A Supplemental Needs Trust (“SNT”) is often a critical component of the Guardianship process. In a typical situation a person who is incapacitated may be entitled to a large monetary award due to a personal injury action. Since the incapacitated person would also qualify for government benefits such as Medicaid and SSI, the SNT provides a means by which the monetary funds can be set aside for extra benefits without the loss of the governmental entitlements. In the Guardianship proceeding, the Court authorizes the Guardian to establish the SNT and to transfer the funds into the Trust thus avoiding any loss of benefits. The SNT trustees, who are also designated by the Court, then administer the trust for the benefit of the disabled person. The trustees selected are commonly the family members who are the Guardians.

Once the SNT is established, the trustees can make expenditures for such things as computers, vacations, extra care and other items which the governmental benefits do not pay for without losing the governmental coverage for other items such as medical care. A good explanation of this process is provided in a recent case decided by Justice Howard H. Sherman on April 19, 2012 and reported in the New York Law Journal on May 14, 2012 entitled Matter of Geraldine R. In this case the Department of Social Services (Medicaid) claimed that the Supplemental Needs Trust trustees did not need to obtain prior Court approval to pay for items such as a vacation, purchase of a computer, printer and television, and educational programs. The Court found that it had authority to approve these items prior to the expenditure.

In fact, it is the usual and appropriate manner for trustees of a SNT to obtain prior Court approval of their expenditures. The trustees can then avoid a later denial by the Court and the requirement that they reimburse the trust for improper expenses.

I have represented many clients in connection with Guardianship proceedings and the establishment of a Supplemental Needs Trust. These cases require a Court hearing and I work closely with my clients and their families to help them through what can be a complex court process.