Pikula v. Dept. of Social Services
321 Conn. 259, 138 A.3d 212, 2016 WL 1749666 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A testamentary trust does not constitute an 'available asset' for Medicaid eligibility purposes if the testator's intent, as evidenced by the trust's language and surrounding circumstances, was to create a supplemental needs trust. Language granting a trustee 'sole and absolute discretion' that 'shall not be questioned by anyone' indicates an intent to create a supplemental needs trust, as the beneficiary has no legal authority to compel distributions.
Facts:
- In 1989, John Pikula executed a will that created a testamentary trust for his daughter, Marian Pikula.
- The trust granted the trustee discretion to pay income 'as the Trustee may deem advisable' for Marian Pikula's maintenance and support.
- The trust also empowered the trustee with 'sole and absolute discretion' to disburse principal for her support, illness, or disability, taking her other income into account.
- The trust explicitly stated the trustee's discretion 'shall be conclusive... and the same shall not be questioned by anyone.'
- John Pikula died in 1991, at which point the trust became effective.
- In March 2012, Marian Pikula entered a long-term care facility and subsequently applied for Medicaid benefits.
- At the time of her application, the trust's value was approximately $169,745.91.
Procedural Posture:
- The Department of Social Services denied Marian Pikula's application for Medicaid benefits in May 2013.
- Pikula requested an administrative hearing, and in December 2013, a hearing officer upheld the department's denial.
- Pikula's request for reconsideration of the hearing officer's decision was denied.
- Pikula, as plaintiff, appealed the administrative decision to the Superior Court (trial court).
- The Superior Court dismissed Pikula's appeal, concluding that the hearing officer's determination was proper.
- Pikula, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Appellate Court.
- The Connecticut Supreme Court then transferred the appeal to itself before the Appellate Court could hear the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a testamentary trust, which grants the trustee 'sole and absolute discretion' to disburse principal and provides that the trustee's decision 'shall not be questioned by anyone,' constitute an 'available asset' for the purpose of determining the beneficiary's Medicaid eligibility?
Opinions:
Majority - Eveleigh, J.
No. The testamentary trust is a supplemental needs trust, and its assets are not 'available' to the plaintiff for the purpose of determining her Medicaid eligibility. The court's primary task is to determine the testator's intent by analyzing the trust's language and the circumstances of its creation. The language in this trust, granting the trustee 'sole and absolute discretion' and insulating that discretion from legal challenge ('shall not be questioned by anyone'), is dispositive. This language demonstrates the testator's intent to give the beneficiary, Marian Pikula, no legal right or power to compel distributions from the trustee. Comparing this case to precedent, the trust is analogous to the one in Zeoli v. Commissioner of Social Services, where similar language was found to create a supplemental needs trust. It is distinguishable from Corcoran v. Dept. of Social Services, where the trustee's discretion was limited by an ascertainable standard of 'health, support in reasonable comfort.' Furthermore, the relatively modest size of the trust corpus, which would be quickly depleted by long-term care costs, supports the conclusion that the testator intended the trust to supplement, not replace, public benefits.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms and clarifies the distinction between general support trusts and supplemental needs trusts for Medicaid eligibility in Connecticut. The court emphasizes that explicit language granting a trustee 'sole and absolute' and 'unquestionable' discretion is a powerful indicator of a testator's intent to create a supplemental needs trust, whose assets will be shielded. This case serves as a crucial guide for estate planners on how to draft trusts for beneficiaries who may need public assistance, demonstrating that such protective trusts can be established even without using the specific term 'supplemental needs'. The ruling solidifies the principle that if a beneficiary has no legal power to compel a distribution, the asset is not 'available' and should not disqualify them from receiving benefits.
