XO, help me figure out a case.
| 180 pervert | 05/21/24 | | Primrose rough-skinned stage | 05/21/24 | | Burgundy Contagious Forum | 05/21/24 | | 180 pervert | 05/21/24 | | ivory national elastic band | 05/21/24 | | 180 pervert | 05/21/24 | | Exciting Black School Hunting Ground | 05/21/24 | | Burgundy Contagious Forum | 05/21/24 | | 180 pervert | 05/21/24 | | ivory national elastic band | 05/21/24 | | 180 pervert | 05/21/24 | | ivory national elastic band | 05/21/24 | | ivory national elastic band | 05/21/24 | | Hyperactive Topaz Mood Site | 05/21/24 | | galvanic plum feces institution | 05/21/24 | | Fuchsia Passionate Set | 05/21/24 | | 180 pervert | 05/21/24 | | galvanic plum feces institution | 05/21/24 | | 180 pervert | 05/22/24 | | Salmon Public Bath | 05/22/24 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: May 21st, 2024 9:49 PM Author: 180 pervert
In the middle of jury trial. Client is a poor, beleaguered redneck whose mom made her preacher her power of attorney. Mom then signed over the family farm herself to preacher. A few years later, mom was unable to qualify for Medicaid because of the deed for no consideration to the preacher. So, the preacher and another relative who was also power of attorney did a sort of deed jiu jitsu. Preacher re-conveyed the farm to mom, then had the other power of attorney sign a deed for mom giving him a remainder interest in the farm, for little to no consideration. This enabled Mom to qualify for Medicaid, and preacher put her in a nursing home. Mom died shortly thereafter and preacher resumed being the sole owner of the farm. We're trying to get the deed declared invalid because of a variety of technical problems with how deed and power of attorney were executed, and get a judgment that my client is the true owner of the property.
Here is what I'm pondering tonight. Why did the preacher do the second set of deeds? He already had ownership of the property. Why not just let the mom die? Why endanger his ownership to get her onto Medicaid and into a nursing home? Was it some shred of human decency, or is there some level to the scam that I'm missing?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5531282&forum_id=2#47681931) |
|
Date: May 21st, 2024 10:22 PM Author: Burgundy Contagious Forum
He can do that.
Preacher would have been aware of undue influence doctrine. That’s not a complicated concept and there are probably theology course materials on it. And he knew he was vulnerable to attack in that regard which would be embarrassing to him at the least.
In order to make a better case for the appropriateness of the initial transfer he opted to do the second transfer, to “demonstrate” in an unsophisticated fashion that he had the mother’s best interest at heart.
Don’t know where that leaves you now and would have to work it up to know. But that’s my best guest as to motivation at least. There’s country dumb and there’s country sly as a fox.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5531282&forum_id=2#47682097) |
Date: May 22nd, 2024 6:43 AM Author: Salmon Public Bath
He returned the gift to eliminate the Medicaid penalty period.
In your question why he cared enough to do that? For one, the lifetime gift is presumptively void because of the confidential relationship, so someone (the state?) could have sued and forced him to return it. The life estate deed is not going to be presumptively void and if it is a life estate with retained power of sale, probably will not cause Medicaid ineligibility.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5531282&forum_id=2#47682510) |
|
|