Makedonsky v. ND Department of Human Services
v.
North Dakota Department
of Human Services, Appellee
Judge Thomas J. Schneider
| Appellant: | Larson Latham Bliss Huettl, LLP | |
| Appellee: | Jean R. Mullen , Att. General Office |
Listen to recording of oral argument
using RealPlayer Basic,© a free download.
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