I'm my now deceased fathers last living child and he had a great trust setup and his attorney was so helpful because he wanted to die at home and I moved in with him for the last year of his life. I'm still healing physically. I worked in alot of nursing homes and I swore I'd never put him in one. Period. ❤
You are inaccurate and doing a disservice to the middle class in about 80% of what you said about irrevocable trusts as they relate to us normal people. I would tear your Rupert Murdoch example up and show you how a Middle Class Asset Protection (MCAP) Trust serves people in a more protective and controlled way compared to your LLC with RLT method which gives superficial asset protection easily pierced in court. I'd love to have a live discussion with you.
Baloney the New Law Model Estate Plan Trust cost my family a million in litigation because it's compared to a plane ticket needing a service crew to perform all the administrative steps needed to avoid inheritance thieves, with a Prebate Nickel to spare our kids the Probate Dime and Trust Litigation Quarter.
Why not pay your bill or have your kids take care of you at home like we did for 2 sets of parents, instead of scamming you fellow taxpayers to pay your nursing bills.
@@InterdictionTrustAdvocate I like that you mentioned the word "taxpayers" because you are correct - Medicaid is funded by the taxes @markmatanese819 paid his entire life. I once represented a family whose monthly care costs was $30,000. PER MONTH. I have had cases at $18k per month, and hundreds at $8 k or so per month. No one plans on Alzheimer and yet it is the eighth leading cause of death in the US and we are experiencing a silver tsunami in which all of us are aging at the same time and the care industry can't keep up. I mention the reality to you because there is no morality when it comes to outliving your health span and going broke trying to live one more day. Whenever one mixes morality, as you did, with the word "tax", which really just means government, I am in. On this issue, care costs are artificially high because a good chunk of a care community has residents on Medicaid. The Medicaid reimbursement rate is 60% or so lower than the private pay rate. To remain profitable, the facility raises the price for private pay residents. So, because of the government program, you willl have paid taxes into the system to pay for your care at an amount MUCH higher than you actually paid in taxes during your entire lifetime, you will pay far more than you should because you paid taxes into a system that is forcing the price up. In truth, we all take in the shorts paying taxes our entire life and then again when we proudly insist on paying ridiculous prices at the end. The other thing you are missing is that care communities require a private pay time period and then allow you to roll to Medicaid. Guess what happens if you get that wrong and run our of money. That's right. You are evicted. How's that sound? The Medicaid statute specifically authorizes two different trusts under 42 USC 1396, a d4a trust and a d4c, in which folks can transfer retirement assets and implement a care costs in which the funds are used to SUPPLEMENT the Medicaid covered care. If trusts were so evil, why would the Medicaid program that you paid for encourage you to use a a trust? Why does Medicaid authorize a trust in your will to protect your spouse's inheritance against Medicaid liens and spend downs? No. Mr or Ms. @InterdictionTrustAdvocate , I respectfully disagree. The first modern trust was created during the Black Plague to protect citizens' rights against the Crown's right of reversion when an estate owner and all his male heirs died of the bubonic plague. It worked wonderfully. Ever since that time, trusts stand as the very stalward against government overreaching and forced subjugation at the cost of family wealth. While the Magna Carta helped a little, it is an ongoing battle, for which we must be constantly vigilant. Glory, hallelujah!
I have one. I'm in the construction and rehab businesses so for me it makes sense since it's so litigious. The one I have is for that company. I use revocable on everything else.
Ok, lots of scenarios out there. I only have one beneficiary so no worries about family issues. My question is there a way to protect your assets if you have to eventually go to a nursing home for care and do not qualify for Medicaide. With the rising costs of care, the cost could easily go through your assests and then some. Take your home and anything of value. Can you just gift your assests away to your beneficiary. Not sure if theres a look back in play. My estate consist of two homes and a portfolio.
You need to see an attorney who specializes in estate planning in YOUR state. There is always a look back period when you outright transfer assets to a beneficiary.
Read my comments above. I can't give you advice in a comment but I am an old, semi-retired attorney who has spent my work life on this exact issue. At this point, I am committed to educating folks on the difference between asset protection one estate transfer. The world is obsessed with simplicity and, in this context, means a simple living trust that, as you will read above, does not protect assets. Rather, it exposes them. I also mention trusts that are specifically authorized by the Medicaid statute to help you. Also, the Medicaid code has a series of rules to prevent spousal impoverishment. If anyone on this thread is married, there is a lot you can do without worrying about a trust. For example, let me explain how Medicaid's spousal impoverishment protection rules work, particularly focusing on the mathematical calculations that can help protect more assets than many people realize. When one spouse needs long-term care (we'll call them the ill spouse), Medicaid allows the healthy spouse (the community spouse) to keep certain assets and income. The basic protection starts with allowing the ill spouse to keep $2,000 in assets, plus their home, a car, and personal belongings. The community spouse can initially keep what's called a Community Spouse Resource Allowance (CSRA), which ranges from $55,000 to $120,000, depending on the state. However, here's where it gets interesting - and potentially very beneficial. The community spouse is guaranteed a certain monthly income level called the Minimum Monthly Maintenance Needs Allowance (MMMNA). If their income falls below this threshold, they can petition to keep additional assets beyond the basic CSRA. This is where the math becomes crucial: Example Let's say John (well spouse) and Mary (ill spouse) have: Combined countable assets: $500,000 John's monthly income: $1,500 (Social Security) Mary's monthly income: $800 (Social Security) State's MMMNA: $2,500 Without Additional Resource Petition: John would keep: $120,000 (maximum CSRA) Must spend down: $378,000 ($500,000 - $120,000 - $2,000 for Mary) With Additional Resource Petition: Calculate income shortfall: Target (MMMNA): $2,500 Current total income: $2,300 ($1,500 + $800) Monthly shortfall: $200 Calculate additional resources allowed: Annual shortfall: $2,400 ($200 × 12) At 5% interest rate: $48,000 ($2,400 ÷ 0.05) Final protection: Base CSRA: $120,000 Additional resources: $48,000 Total protected: $168,000 This means John can keep $168,000 instead of $120,000, protecting an additional $48,000 from spend-down requirements and no trust was required. The formula works like this: Take the monthly income shortfall, multiply it by 12 to get the annual shortfall, then divide by the current interest rate (as a decimal) to determine how much additional principal would be needed to generate that income. In our example, $1,000 monthly shortfall becomes $12,000 annually. At a 5% interest rate, you'd need $240,000 in additional assets to generate that income ($12,000 ÷ 0.05 = $240,000). This means that instead of being limited to the maximum CSRA of $120,000, the community spouse could potentially keep up to $360,000 ($120,000 CSRA + $240,000 additional resources). The lower the interest rate, the more assets can be protected, because it would take more principal to generate the same amount of income. Real-world implications are significant. Consider a couple where the community spouse receives $1,500 in Social Security and the ill spouse receives $800. If their state's MMMNA is $2,500, there's a $200 monthly shortfall even after combining their incomes. At a 5% interest rate, this $200 monthly shortfall ($2,400 annually) would justify protecting an additional $48,000 in assets ($2,400 ÷ 0.05). This means their total protected assets would be $168,000 instead of just the $120,000 CSRA. The beauty of this provision is that it recognizes the real-world need for investment income to support the community spouse. It's particularly powerful in low-interest-rate environments, as more principal is needed to generate the same income. However, it's important to note that these calculations can vary by state and specific circumstances, so professional legal counsel is recommended for precise calculations and state-specific rules. This approach transforms what might seem like a simple asset limit into a more nuanced and potentially generous protection for the community spouse, helping maintain their financial stability while still qualifying for needed Medicaid benefits. Remember, asset protection is the LAWFUL repositioning of assets or application of safe harbor rules to render assets unavailable to creditors.
Recently a friend of mine passed away..he left his house to his son's in a irrevocable trust..which was his way of keeping his house from ending up in one of the many bimbos he had hanging around..but unfortunately he had a code compliance issue with the city and ignored it for many years;no worries for him they could not take his house(because of the irrevocable trust)however when he died and his house went to his son's so did the code compliance fines which had gone from a few thousand dollars to approx.fifty thousand dollars and needed to be paid in full or the city is gonna take the house..so in this case-not a good idea for his son's sake ..
Sounds like with am irrevocable trust, there is more trust going on...more discipline! We are already in a world where people think they can just do whatever they want to do; and at any time to anyone 🤷🏽♂️
I'm my now deceased fathers last living child and he had a great trust setup and his attorney was so helpful because he wanted to die at home and I moved in with him for the last year of his life. I'm still healing physically. I worked in alot of nursing homes and I swore I'd never put him in one. Period. ❤
I wanted to protect my home from the state taking my home for Medicaid. Away from my children
You are inaccurate and doing a disservice to the middle class in about 80% of what you said about irrevocable trusts as they relate to us normal people. I would tear your Rupert Murdoch example up and show you how a Middle Class Asset Protection (MCAP) Trust serves people in a more protective and controlled way compared to your LLC with RLT method which gives superficial asset protection easily pierced in court. I'd love to have a live discussion with you.
Baloney the New Law Model Estate Plan Trust cost my family a million in litigation because it's compared to a plane ticket needing a service crew to perform all the administrative steps needed to avoid inheritance thieves, with a Prebate Nickel to spare our kids the Probate Dime and Trust Litigation Quarter.
I see the advantages of the Revocable Living Trust, but what if your primary objective is to protect an asset from a nursing home?
Why not pay your bill or have your kids take care of you at home like we did for 2 sets of parents, instead of scamming you fellow taxpayers to pay your nursing bills.
@@InterdictionTrustAdvocate I like that you mentioned the word "taxpayers" because you are correct - Medicaid is funded by the taxes @markmatanese819 paid his entire life. I once represented a family whose monthly care costs was $30,000. PER MONTH. I have had cases at $18k per month, and hundreds at $8 k or so per month. No one plans on Alzheimer and yet it is the eighth leading cause of death in the US and we are experiencing a silver tsunami in which all of us are aging at the same time and the care industry can't keep up.
I mention the reality to you because there is no morality when it comes to outliving your health span and going broke trying to live one more day. Whenever one mixes morality, as you did, with the word "tax", which really just means government, I am in. On this issue, care costs are artificially high because a good chunk of a care community has residents on Medicaid. The Medicaid reimbursement rate is 60% or so lower than the private pay rate. To remain profitable, the facility raises the price for private pay residents. So, because of the government program, you willl have paid taxes into the system to pay for your care at an amount MUCH higher than you actually paid in taxes during your entire lifetime, you will pay far more than you should because you paid taxes into a system that is forcing the price up.
In truth, we all take in the shorts paying taxes our entire life and then again when we proudly insist on paying ridiculous prices at the end.
The other thing you are missing is that care communities require a private pay time period and then allow you to roll to Medicaid. Guess what happens if you get that wrong and run our of money. That's right. You are evicted. How's that sound?
The Medicaid statute specifically authorizes two different trusts under 42 USC 1396, a d4a trust and a d4c, in which folks can transfer retirement assets and implement a care costs in which the funds are used to SUPPLEMENT the Medicaid covered care.
If trusts were so evil, why would the Medicaid program that you paid for encourage you to use a a trust? Why does Medicaid authorize a trust in your will to protect your spouse's inheritance against Medicaid liens and spend downs?
No. Mr or Ms. @InterdictionTrustAdvocate , I respectfully disagree. The first modern trust was created during the Black Plague to protect citizens' rights against the Crown's right of reversion when an estate owner and all his male heirs died of the bubonic plague. It worked wonderfully. Ever since that time, trusts stand as the very stalward against government overreaching and forced subjugation at the cost of family wealth. While the Magna Carta helped a little, it is an ongoing battle, for which we must be constantly vigilant. Glory, hallelujah!
@@InterdictionTrustAdvocateWhat if they have no kids or they need much more care than a child is capable of? Kudos to you on being so amazing.
Your videos and your dads books really help to understand this kind of information. Thanks!
No problem! We’re happy to help.
Very informative!
Thank you! Glad it was helpful!
I have one. I'm in the construction and rehab businesses so for me it makes sense since it's so litigious. The one I have is for that company. I use revocable on everything else.
Ok, lots of scenarios out there. I only have one beneficiary so no worries about family issues. My question is there a way to protect your assets if you have to eventually go to a nursing home for care and do not qualify for Medicaide. With the rising costs of care, the cost could easily go through your assests and then some. Take your home and anything of value. Can you just gift your assests away to your beneficiary. Not sure if theres a look back in play. My estate consist of two homes and a portfolio.
You need to see an attorney who specializes in estate planning in YOUR state. There is always a look back period when you outright transfer assets to a beneficiary.
Medicaid has 5 year look back
Read my comments above. I can't give you advice in a comment but I am an old, semi-retired attorney who has spent my work life on this exact issue. At this point, I am committed to educating folks on the difference between asset protection one estate transfer. The world is obsessed with simplicity and, in this context, means a simple living trust that, as you will read above, does not protect assets. Rather, it exposes them. I also mention trusts that are specifically authorized by the Medicaid statute to help you. Also, the Medicaid code has a series of rules to prevent spousal impoverishment. If anyone on this thread is married, there is a lot you can do without worrying about a trust. For example, let me explain how Medicaid's spousal impoverishment protection rules work, particularly focusing on the mathematical calculations that can help protect more assets than many people realize.
When one spouse needs long-term care (we'll call them the ill spouse), Medicaid allows the healthy spouse (the community spouse) to keep certain assets and income. The basic protection starts with allowing the ill spouse to keep $2,000 in assets, plus their home, a car, and personal belongings. The community spouse can initially keep what's called a Community Spouse Resource Allowance (CSRA), which ranges from $55,000 to $120,000, depending on the state.
However, here's where it gets interesting - and potentially very beneficial. The community spouse is guaranteed a certain monthly income level called the Minimum Monthly Maintenance Needs Allowance (MMMNA). If their income falls below this threshold, they can petition to keep additional assets beyond the basic CSRA. This is where the math becomes crucial:
Example Let's say John (well spouse) and Mary (ill spouse) have:
Combined countable assets: $500,000
John's monthly income: $1,500 (Social Security)
Mary's monthly income: $800 (Social Security)
State's MMMNA: $2,500
Without Additional Resource Petition:
John would keep: $120,000 (maximum CSRA)
Must spend down: $378,000 ($500,000 - $120,000 - $2,000 for Mary)
With Additional Resource Petition:
Calculate income shortfall:
Target (MMMNA): $2,500
Current total income: $2,300 ($1,500 + $800)
Monthly shortfall: $200
Calculate additional resources allowed:
Annual shortfall: $2,400 ($200 × 12)
At 5% interest rate: $48,000 ($2,400 ÷ 0.05)
Final protection:
Base CSRA: $120,000
Additional resources: $48,000
Total protected: $168,000
This means John can keep $168,000 instead of $120,000, protecting an additional $48,000 from spend-down requirements and no trust was required.
The formula works like this: Take the monthly income shortfall, multiply it by 12 to get the annual shortfall, then divide by the current interest rate (as a decimal) to determine how much additional principal would be needed to generate that income. In our example, $1,000 monthly shortfall becomes $12,000 annually. At a 5% interest rate, you'd need $240,000 in additional assets to generate that income ($12,000 ÷ 0.05 = $240,000).
This means that instead of being limited to the maximum CSRA of $120,000, the community spouse could potentially keep up to $360,000 ($120,000 CSRA + $240,000 additional resources). The lower the interest rate, the more assets can be protected, because it would take more principal to generate the same amount of income.
Real-world implications are significant. Consider a couple where the community spouse receives $1,500 in Social Security and the ill spouse receives $800. If their state's MMMNA is $2,500, there's a $200 monthly shortfall even after combining their incomes. At a 5% interest rate, this $200 monthly shortfall ($2,400 annually) would justify protecting an additional $48,000 in assets ($2,400 ÷ 0.05). This means their total protected assets would be $168,000 instead of just the $120,000 CSRA.
The beauty of this provision is that it recognizes the real-world need for investment income to support the community spouse. It's particularly powerful in low-interest-rate environments, as more principal is needed to generate the same income. However, it's important to note that these calculations can vary by state and specific circumstances, so professional legal counsel is recommended for precise calculations and state-specific rules.
This approach transforms what might seem like a simple asset limit into a more nuanced and potentially generous protection for the community spouse, helping maintain their financial stability while still qualifying for needed Medicaid benefits.
Remember, asset protection is the LAWFUL repositioning of assets or application of safe harbor rules to render assets unavailable to creditors.
@@assetprotectionprofessor I am also an attorney and I admire you thoughtful and insightful commentary . Excellent 👍⭐️
@ Thanks! It isn't easy, is it?
👍👍👍👍😱😱Thank you for the info, I was going in the wrong direction totally to your video open up my eyes thank you so much 👍👍👍👍👍👍
Of course! Glad I could help.
I@@CorporateDirectInchow can I get in touch with you asap? Please help me 11/30/24
Recently a friend of mine passed away..he left his house to his son's in a irrevocable trust..which was his way of keeping his house from ending up in one of the many bimbos he had hanging around..but unfortunately he had a code compliance issue with the city and ignored it for many years;no worries for him they could not take his house(because of the irrevocable trust)however when he died and his house went to his son's so did the code compliance fines which had gone from a few thousand dollars to approx.fifty thousand dollars and needed to be paid in full or the city is gonna take the house..so in this case-not a good idea for his son's sake ..
Why did the son remove the house from the trust? He was the beneficiary and could have stayed like that, right?
Just keep in the trust
Very informative
Sounds like with am irrevocable trust, there is more trust going on...more discipline! We are already in a world where people think they can just do whatever they want to do; and at any time to anyone 🤷🏽♂️
Can’t you just name your beneficiaries in your will ?
No, you need a NICER FEDS Forgery Proof monitored and validated Interdiction Living Trust.
Trustee can still refuse one or all beneficiaries but themselves