Makedonsky v. ND Department of Human Services
Minnie Makedonsky, Appellant
North Dakota Department
of Human Services, Appellee
Southeast Judicial District,
Judge Thomas J. Schneider
|Nature of Action:||Administrative Proceeding|
|Term:||11/2007  Argument: 11/06/2007 9:00am|
|ND cite:||2008 ND 49|
746 N.W.2d 185
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
1. Did the North Dakota Department of Human Services err by counting for purposes of Medicaid eligibility the assets that Appellant transferred before the applicable look-back period?
2. Did the North Dakota Department of Human Services err by counting for purposes of Medicaid eligibility the assets that Appellant transferred by and through her attorney-in-fact, pursuant to a validly executed power of attorney, to someone other than the attorney-in-fact?
3. Did the North Dakota Department of Human Services err by counting for purposes of Medicaid eligibility the assets that Appellant transferred by and through her attorney-in-fact, pursuant to a validly executed power of attorney, to all of Appellant's children jointly, which included the agent?
4. Did the North Dakota Department of Human Services err by determining that the effective date of the Appellant's transfers of assets was the date that Appellant ratified the transfers instead of the actual date of the transfers?
Reply Brief Issues
1. At The time of Signing the Statement of Intention to Gift, Minnie Ratified The Previous Transfers And This Ratification Applies Retroactively to the Date of the Transfers.
2. Only Those Transfers To JoAnn Are Subject To The Presumption Of Undue Influence And Any Presumption Of Undue Influence Was Overcome By Minnie's Signing Of The Statement Of Intention To Gift.
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
1. The North Dakota Department of Human Services found the date on which Makedonsky signed a Statement of Intent to Gift was the date on which she made a disqualifying transfer of her "chose in action" to seek to have assets transferred by her Attorney-in-Fact returned to her. The issue is whether this finding was supported by the facts and the law.
2. The Department of Human Services found the evidence presented by Makedonsky did not rebut the presumption of undue influence that arises when a person in a confidential relationship gains an advantage from the beneficiary. The issue is whether this finding was supported by the facts and the law.
|Add Docket 20070183 RSS|
|1||06/25/2007||NOTICE OF APPEAL: 06/20/2007|
|2||06/25/2007||ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 06/20/2007|
|3||06/28/2007||Reset due date for Appellant's Brief as no transcript will be filed|
|4||06/28/2007||ACTION BY CLERK (reset due date for Appellant's Brief). Granted: 07/30/2007|
|5||07/17/2007||MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF|
|6||07/17/2007||ACTION BY CLERK (MOT. EXT/TIME ATB). Granted: 08/13/2007|
|7||07/17/2007||RECORD ON APPEAL w/Separate (Entry No. 9 - ND Dept. of Human Svcs. Cert. of Record).|
|8||07/24/2007||MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF (Faxed letter from Damian J. Huettl dated 7-23-07)|
|9||07/23/2007||E-FILED MOTION (MAT) (faxed)|
|10||07/23/2007||ACTION BY CLERK (MAT). Granted: 08/20/2007|
|11||07/25/2007||Administrative appeal hearing transcript (10/4/06)|
|13||08/20/2007||E-FILED BRIEF - ATB|
|15||08/21/2007||Received $25 surcharge for ATB (Receipt 17657)|
|16||09/12/2007||Received 8 copies of ATB from Central Duplicating|
|18||09/20/2007||DISK - corrected aeb (e-mailed)|
|19||09/20/2007||8 cc each of corrected TOA & pgs for AEB|
|20||10/05/2007||REPLY BRIEF of Appellant (e-filed)|
|21||10/08/2007||E-FILED BRIEF (RYB)|
|22||10/05/2007||Certificate of Service by e-mail of RYB on opposing counsel|
|23||10/11/2007||Received copies of RYB from Central Duplicating|
|24||11/06/2007||APPEARANCES: Damian J. Huettl; Jean R. Mullen, Asst. Attorney General|
|25||11/06/2007||ARGUED: Huettl; Mullen|
|26||11/06/2007||ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|
|28||03/20/2008||SPLIT OPINION: Crothers, Daniel John|
|29||03/20/2008||DISSENT: Maring, Mary Muehlen: DISSENT|
|30||03/20/2008||DISSENT: Kapsner, Carol Ronning: JN/DIS|
|31||03/20/2008||Costs on appeal taxed in favor of Appellee.|
|32||03/24/2008||Judgment e-mailed to Parties|
|33||04/03/2008||PETITION FOR REHEARING (e-filed)|
|34||04/03/2008||E-FILED BRIEF (PER)|
|35||04/07/2008||Received 7 copies of PER from Central Duplicating|
|36||04/17/2008||ACTION BY SUPREME COURT. Denied|
|38||05/01/2008||RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE|