by Jose D. Roman | Mar 31, 2026 | Estate Administration, Estate Planning, Guardianship, Intestate Estate (No Will), Last Will and Testament, Legal Bulletin, Medicaid, Medicaid Estate Recovery, Medicaid Planning, Medicaid Updates, Trusts
A decision from the New Jersey Appellate Division published June 17, 2025 (In the Matter of G.W.) has clarified a critical and previously unsettled area of law concerning public benefit liens. The court held that a lien issued by the Division of Developmental Disabilities (DDD) is immediately enforceable, while a Medicaid lien cannot be collected until the beneficiary’s death — a distinction with significant consequences for estate planning.
The Background
Gabrielle W., an adjudicated incapacitated adult, received residential services funded by both DDD and Medicaid. When she inherited $600,000 from her sister’s estate, Arc of Bergen and Passaic Counties, her court-appointed property guardian, sought to protect her Medicaid eligibility by transferring those funds to a special needs trust. But standing in the way was a $1,052,304 lien from DDD for the cost of her care — a lien DDD sought to enforce immediately.
The trial court declined to enforce the DDD lien, ruling instead that Medicaid’s future estate recovery rights had priority. The court reasoned it was in Gabrielle’s best interest to preserve her Medicaid eligibility and protect the trust. But on appeal, the Appellate Division disagreed.
The Court's Holding
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s order, emphasizing that DDD liens are enforceable immediately under N.J.S.A. 30:4-80.1. These liens attach to the property of a living person who receives services from DDD. On the other hand, Medicaid liens can only be asserted posthumously, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 30:4D-7.2, and only against the estate of the deceased Medicaid recipient.
The court concluded there is no statutory conflict: both liens can coexist, but they operate on distinct timelines. In the case of a living person like Gabrielle, DDD had the only legally viable lien. Medicaid’s recovery rights would not ripen until Gabrielle’s death.
Why This Matters
This case is a clear warning to guardians, trustees, and estate planners: Inherited assets cannot be shielded from DDD repayment obligations simply by invoking Medicaid's future claim rights. If a client receives services from DDD and comes into money, the DDD lien must be addressed promptly — either by repayment or through the statutory compromise process. The court also made clear that a “best interests” argument cannot override a legislatively mandated lien. Courts must enforce the statutes as written.
Planning Tip
If you have a loved one who receives public benefits like Medicaid or services from DDD, careful estate planning is essential. Leaving them an inheritance outright — even with good intentions — can jeopardize their benefits and trigger immediate repayment obligations. Instead, consider using special needs trusts or other protective planning tools to ensure their continued eligibility and long-term care without exposing them to liens or disruptions in services.
The G.W. case illustrates precisely what happens when protective planning is absent. Gabrielle's sister died intestate — without a will — which meant the $600,000 passed to Gabrielle outright under New Jersey's laws of intestate succession. There was no will directing those funds into a Special Needs Trust, no advance coordination with an elder law attorney, and no mechanism to receive the inheritance in a protected form. The result was an immediate lien enforcement proceeding that consumed the entirety of the inheritance and left nothing for Gabrielle's ongoing care needs.
Had Gabrielle's sister executed a will with proper special needs planning, she could have directed her estate — or the portion intended for Gabrielle — into a third-party Special Needs Trust. Unlike a first-party trust funded with the beneficiary's own assets, a third-party SNT is established with someone else's money and carries no Medicaid payback requirement at death. Gabrielle would have received the benefit of those funds without triggering the DDD lien, and without disrupting her Medicaid eligibility.
This is one of the most important and underappreciated points in elder law and disability planning: the person doing the planning is often not the disabled individual, but the family member who intends to leave them something. A parent, sibling, or other relative who has a loved one receiving public benefits should have a will — and that will should account for the beneficiary's disability. Leaving assets outright to a Medicaid or DDD recipient, however well-intentioned, can do more harm than good.
by Jose D. Roman | Mar 25, 2026 | Estate Planning, Guardianship, Irrevocable Family Trusts, Medicaid, Medicaid Planning, Power of Attorney, Trusts
When most people hear the word “divorce,” they think of a relationship in crisis. But for some New Jersey couples facing the catastrophic cost of long-term care, divorce is not a sign of a failing marriage — it is a deliberate financial planning strategy designed to protect a healthy spouse from impoverishment while allowing the other spouse to qualify for Medicaid.
It sounds counterintuitive. It raises profound emotional and ethical questions. And it is not a strategy that is right for most families. But in the right circumstances, a so-called “Medicaid divorce” is a legitimate legal strategy under New Jersey law.
Why Married Couples Face a Unique Medicaid Challenge
Medicaid treats married couples differently than single individuals when assessing eligibility for long-term care benefits. When one spouse applies for Medicaid to cover nursing home or home-based long-term care, Medicaid looks at the combined assets of both spouses — regardless of whose name the assets are in — and requires a spend-down to very low levels before the institutionalized spouse qualifies.
New Jersey does provide some protection for the healthy spouse, known as the “Community Spouse.” The Community Spouse Resource Allowance (CSRA) permits the Community Spouse to retain a portion of the couple’s combined countable assets. For 2026, the CSRA in New Jersey ranges from a minimum of $32,532 to a maximum of $162,660, depending on the total assets. The community spouse is also entitled to a Minimum Monthly Maintenance Needs Allowance (MMMNA) to cover monthly living expenses — currently $2,643.75 per month.
For couples with modest assets, the CSRA and MMMNA may provide adequate protection. But for couples with significant savings these protections may still leave the community spouse facing financial hardship after a Medicaid spend-down.
What Is a Medicaid Divorce?
A Medicaid divorce is exactly what it sounds like: the couple obtains a real, legal divorce for the primary purpose of restructuring their assets. If done properly the divorce allows the Medicaid applicant spouse to qualify for Medicaid while allowing the healthy spouse to retain a larger share of the marital estate than Medicaid’s spousal protection rules would otherwise permit.
This is not a separation, a legal fiction, or a paper transaction. New Jersey requires an actual divorce. The parties must satisfy the grounds for divorce under New Jersey law — most commonly irreconcilable differences under N.J.S.A. 2A:34-2(i), which requires only that the parties have experienced irreconcilable differences for a period of six months. Establishing grounds is generally straightforward. The harder questions involve asset division, legal capacity, and Medicaid’s scrutiny of the resulting property settlement.
How Divorce Can Help: The Mechanics
Under New Jersey matrimonial law, divorce entitles each spouse to an equitable distribution of marital assets. “Equitable” does not necessarily mean equal — courts consider a range of factors, including each spouse’s financial needs, health, and ability to earn income. In the context of a Medicaid divorce, the parties’ attorneys will negotiate a property settlement agreement (PSA) that awards the healthy spouse a disproportionate share of the marital estate — often well above 50 percent — based on their demonstrated need to support themselves independently.
Once the divorce is finalized and assets are distributed pursuant to a court order, Medicaid should treat the applicant spouse’s eligibility as a single individual. The assets awarded to the now ex-spouse are no longer counted when applying for Medicaid. If the applicant spouse’s retained assets fall below Medicaid’s $2,000 limit, they may qualify for long-term care Medicaid.
Critically, under New Jersey law, a court order transferring assets to the community spouse will supersede Medicaid’s spousal resource rules. This is the legal foundation that makes Medicaid divorce viable in New Jersey: the court’s equitable distribution order takes precedence over Medicaid’s default calculation of spousal assets.
The Transfer Penalty Risk: Proceed with Caution
The most significant legal risk in a Medicaid divorce is the transfer penalty. Medicaid imposes a look-back period of 60 months, during which any asset transfers for less than fair market value are penalized with a period of ineligibility. A divorce property settlement that awards the community spouse an outsized share of marital assets could be characterized by Medicaid as a disqualifying transfer — unless the division is properly structured and supported by documented findings.
New Jersey Medicaid does not simply accept a property settlement agreement at face value. The agency will scrutinize the terms of the divorce decree and the underlying rationale. A PSA that reads like a Medicaid planning document, with no independent factual basis for the proposed distribution, is unlikely to survive that scrutiny.
This is why Medicaid divorce requires coordinated representation by both a matrimonial attorney and an experienced elder law attorney. The two bodies of law must work together, and a misstep in either domain can result in a significant period of Medicaid ineligibility at precisely the moment care is most urgently needed.
The Legal Capacity Question
One of the most difficult issues in Medicaid divorce planning is legal capacity. When a spouse is suffering from a condition that impairs cognitive functioning, their ability to participate in — and consent to — divorce proceedings must be carefully evaluated before any action is taken.
If the Medicaid applicant spouse lacks capacity, the question becomes whether a Power of Attorney gives the agent authority to pursue or consent to divorce on their behalf. Most “standard” Powers of Attorney in New Jersey do not explicitly authorize the agent to file for or consent to divorce proceedings. This is a significant gap. Families contemplating Medicaid divorce as a potential future strategy should ensure that their Power of Attorney documents are drafted broadly enough to address this contingency — or that the question is addressed before capacity is lost.
If no Power of Attorney is in place and the applicant spouse lacks capacity, it may be necessary to pursue guardianship before any matrimonial proceedings can commence. That adds time, cost, and complexity to an already complicated situation.
The Emotional Reality
No discussion of Medicaid divorce is complete without acknowledging what it asks of a couple. For a husband and wife who have been together for many years, the idea of filing for divorce — even “on paper” — can feel like a profound betrayal of the relationship, regardless of the financial logic. Many families ultimately decide against it for this reason alone, and that is a completely legitimate choice.
Some couples find it helpful to think of the divorce as a legal and financial restructuring that does not change the nature of their relationship. They may continue to care for one another as spouses in every meaningful sense. The legal status changes; the relationship does not have to. But this reframing does not work for everyone, and it should never be minimized or dismissed.
Divorce can also impact Social Security survivor benefits, inheritance rights, life insurance beneficiary designations, and existing estate plans. Every one of these downstream consequences needs to be evaluated before proceeding.
Alternatives Worth Considering First
Before pursuing a Medicaid divorce, families should work with an elder law attorney to evaluate whether less disruptive alternatives can achieve comparable results. Depending on the facts, these may include:
- Irrevocable Medicaid trusts: Assets transferred to an irrevocable trust more than five years before a Medicaid application are not counted.
- Convert Countable Assets to Exempt Assets: Converting countable assets into exempt ones — such as home improvements, paying off a mortgage, purchasing a prepaid funeral trust, or buying a Medicaid-compliant annuity — can reduce countable assets without a transfer penalty.
Final Thoughts
Medicaid divorce is one of the most emotionally complex strategies in the elder law toolkit. It is also, in the right circumstances, a legally sound and financially significant option that can protect a community spouse from genuine impoverishment. The key words are “right circumstances.” This is not a strategy to pursue without extensive legal counsel from attorneys who understand both New Jersey matrimonial law and Medicaid eligibility rules. The financial, legal, and emotional stakes are too high for anything less. If you are facing a situation where one spouse needs long-term care and you are concerned about what that means for the other, contact your attorney to discuss options.
by Jose D. Roman | Apr 10, 2025 | Consumer Advocacy, Legal Bulletin, Medicaid, Medicaid Planning, Medicaid Updates
The situation is all too common for Elder Law attorneys and their Medicaid applicant clients – a denial or termination of benefits due to supposedly insufficient documents, even when the agency is provided with everything it asked for. A recent decision, M.L. v. Essex County Division of Family Assistance and Benefits, A-0884-23 (March 18, 2025), highlights the typical scenario where the agency arbitrarily denies an application for reasons not apparent until after the fact. The court’s ruling underscores the importance of procedural fairness in Medicaid eligibility determinations and provides a summary of the law for advocates to use when pushing back on denials or terminations based on insufficient documents.
Case Background
M.L., an elderly nursing home resident, applied for Medicaid benefits on March 31, 2023. The Essex County Division of Family Assistance and Benefits initially requested additional documentation, including bank statements from Wells Fargo, to verify financial eligibility. M.L. promptly requested and obtained these records from his bank and provided copies to Essex County before the deadline. However, Essex County denied his application, claiming that he provided insufficient financial documentation and had unexplained withdrawals. M.L. promptly filed an appeal, as well as a second Medicaid application. The second application contained additional records, including records from a newly discovered Citizens Bank account. During the appeal, M.L. argued that he had substantially complied with Essex County’s requests. An administrative law judge (ALJ) agreed, ruling that M.L. had satisfied Medicaid eligibility requirements. However, the Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services (DMAHS) rejected the ALJ’s decision, affirming the original denial on the grounds that M.L. failed to provide all required documentation within the designated timeframe, including the additional statements from the Citizens Bank account.
Appellate Court’s Summary of the Law
Upon review, the Appellate Division found DMAHS’s final decision to be arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. The Court provided a useful review of New Jersey regulatory law that applies in these circumstances, which is summarized below.
The local County Welfare Agency (CWA) and its caseworkers “exercise direct responsibility in the application process to . . . receive applications.” N.J.A.C. 10:71-2.2(c)(2). The caseworker is charged with evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for Medicaid benefits. N.J.S.A. 30:4D-7a; N.J.A.C. 10:71-2.2(a); N.J.A.C. 10:71-3.15. “The process of establishing eligibility involves a review of the application for completeness, consistency, and reasonableness.” N.J.A.C. 10:71-2.9.
While the applicant is “the primary source of information,” the caseworker is responsible for making “the determination of eligibility and to use secondary sources when necessary, with the applicant’s knowledge and consent.” N.J.A.C. 10:71-1.6(a)(2). The caseworker is not limited in the use of secondary sources to obtain necessary verification information. N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.1(d)(3) states:
The CWA shall verify the equity value of resources through appropriate and credible sources . . . . If the applicant's resource statements are questionable, or there is reason to believe the identification of resources is incomplete, the CWA shall verify the applicant's resource statements through one or more third parties.
The applicant is responsible for cooperating fully with the verification process if the caseworker must contact a third party to verify an applicant’s resources. N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.1(d)(3)(i). The agency may perform a collateral investigation to “verify, supplement or clarify essential information.” N.J.A.C. 10:71-2.10(b).
Under N.J.A.C. 10:71-2.2, the caseworker must communicate with the applicant regarding the claimed deficiencies and then, under N.J.A.C. 10:71-2.10(b), provide an opportunity for the applicant to verify, supplement, or clarify the information before denying an application.
N.J.A.C. 10:71-2.2(e)(1) to (3) requires an applicant to:
- Complete, with assistance from the CWA if needed, any forms required by the CWA as a part of the application process;
- Assist the CWA in securing evidence that corroborates his or her statements; and
- Report promptly any change affecting his or her circumstances.
N.J.A.C. 10:71-2.2(c)(1) to (5) requires a caseworker to:
- Inform the applicants about the purpose and eligibility requirements for Medicaid Only,
- Inform them of their rights and responsibilities under its provisions and inform applicants of their right to a fair hearing;
- Receive applications;
- Assist . . . applicants in exploring their eligibility for assistance;
- Make known to . . . applicants the appropriate resources and services both within the agency and the community, and, if necessary, assist in their use; and
- Assure the prompt and accurate submission of eligibility data to the Medicaid status files for eligible persons and prompt notification to ineligible persons of the reasons for their ineligibility.
State agencies must “turn square corners” with the public they serve in carrying out their statutory responsibilities. W.V. Pangborne & Co. v. N.J. Dep't of Transp., 116 N.J. 543, 561–62 (1989). When this bedrock principle is read together with the above regulations, the dispositive legal conclusion is that both the applicant and the County have a duty under the regulations to take affirmative steps to communicate with each other regarding a pending application. The scope of this joint duty clearly includes the parties’ efforts to clarify prior communications about a pending application.
Court’s Ruling
Based on the summary of the law, the Appellate Division found that the applicant promptly gave the County what it asked for-- namely, the Wells Fargo statements. Upon receipt, the County’s duty was to review the pending application and notify the applicant concerning what, if any, additional information was required to make an eligibility determination. The record showed that the County failed to do so. Instead, it denied the March 31 application and only then informed the applicant that his application was deficient.
It followed that DMAHS’s final administrative decision adopting the improper denial of the March 31 application was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. The Appellate Division reversed DMAHS’s decision and sent the case back to the County, instructing the agency to reopen and process M.L.’s Medicaid application.
Final Thoughts
Though practitioners know it is often the exception, this case serves as a crucial reminder that government agencies must adhere to procedural fairness when assessing Medicaid applications. Applicants have a right to clear communication and a reasonable opportunity to provide necessary documentation. Furthermore, state agencies cannot deny benefits based on minor technicalities or failures in their own procedures.
For Medicaid applicants facing similar challenges, this ruling reinforces the importance of persistence and legal advocacy. If you or a loved one has been wrongfully denied Medicaid benefits, consider consulting with an experienced attorney to ensure your rights are protected.
