Loss of Eligibility Due to Unnecessary Transfers

As mentioned in prior posts, there is a misconception that the transfer of an excludable resource results in an excludable transfer. This is not the case. For example, if a potential applicant transfers his residence to a dependent child residing in the home, such a transfer would give rise to a penalty. The proper approach would be to stand pat and not make the transfer as Post 14 indicates that such property is excludable.

Several posts have discussed the concept of a child providing care for a parent two years prior to institutionalization when such care allows the applicant to remain at home. The transfer of property to such child is treated as exempt if deemed so by the County Board. (See Posts 6, 23, 34, 37 and 40). The posts stress that the transfer should not be made until application before the Board as the issue of whether one qualifies as a protected transferee is subjective.

Another type of excludable property is joint property held with another (say a sibling). Such property is treated as “inaccessible,” and, therefore, excludable. However, transfer of such property would give rise to a penalty.

With respect to the above issues, reference is made to Post 58 which deals with the transfer of an excludable resource.

If presented with such a problem (transfer of exempt property giving rise to a penalty), communication should be made with the County Board with a request that the property be re-transferred. Technically, once such transfer is made, it would appear that the penalty could not be cured. However, I have been successful on several occasions by requesting that the property be transferred back into its original state without a penalty imposed. The County Boards have been sympathetic to such an approach.

Disclaimer: This article does not constitute legal advice and each person may have unique facts for which legal consultation may be necessary.

© April 2009, Post 76