by Jose D. Roman | Oct 20, 2026 | Estate Planning, Last Will and Testament, Living Will, Power of Attorney, Trusts, Uncategorized
If you have attended a free dinner seminar on estate planning, you have heard the pitch. Probate is a nightmare, the government is coming for your house, and the only thing standing between your family and financial ruin is a revocable living trust — available tonight at a special seminar price.
Here is the honest answer I give my clients: a revocable living trust is a genuinely useful tool, but in New Jersey it is oversold. Whether you need one depends entirely on your situation, and most of what the seminars claim is either exaggerated or flatly wrong.
What a Revocable Living Trust Actually Is
A revocable living trust is a legal arrangement you create during your lifetime. You transfer your assets — house, bank accounts, investments — into the trust and name yourself trustee. You keep complete control: you can spend the money, sell the property, change the terms, or revoke the whole thing whenever you want. Under N.J.S.A. 3B:31-43(a), a New Jersey trust is revocable unless its terms expressly say otherwise.
When you die, your chosen successor trustee steps in and distributes everything per your instructions, with no court proceeding for the assets actually in the trust. For income tax purposes, the IRS pretends the trust does not exist while you are alive — a revocable trust is a grantor trust, so all income is taxed to you exactly as if you still held everything in your own name.
Does a Revocable Trust Save You Meaningful Probate Costs in New Jersey?
The number one selling point is probate avoidance. In some states that warning has real teeth. In New Jersey, it mostly does not. I have written in detail about what probate actually looks like here: for a typical uncontested estate, it is an administrative process through the county Surrogate's Court, with typical government filing fees and costs, and no courtroom appearance required. Attorney fees are not set by a statutory percentage the way they are in California or Florida.
So when a trust is marketed to you mainly as New Jersey probate avoidance, ask what problem is actually being solved — for many families, that probate was never going to be expensive. Avoiding probate may have some value, but it is one benefit among several, and it should not be the whole sales pitch.
Does a Revocable Trust Save You Taxes?
This is where the seminar pitch falls apart for New Jersey residents. A revocable living trust does not reduce your taxes — not federal, not state.
New Jersey repealed its estate tax for individuals who died on or after January 1, 2018. There is nothing left for a trust to avoid. The New Jersey inheritance tax, on the other hand, is very much alive — and a revocable trust does nothing to escape it. Because you keep the power to revoke, the state treats the trust property as a transfer taking effect at your death, taxable under N.J.S.A. 54:34-1(c). The tax depends on who receives the assets, not on whether they passed through probate or a trust. Transfers to a spouse, children, parents, and other Class A beneficiaries are exempt either way; transfers to more distant relatives are taxed either way. The trust changes the mechanics, not the tax bill.
Does a Revocable Trust Protect Your Assets?
Because you can revoke the trust and take everything back at any time, your creditors can reach the assets too — a court can simply order you to revoke it. If creditor protection is your goal, a revocable trust provides none.
The same logic applies to Medicaid, and this is the version I see most often. New Jersey's Medicaid rules are explicit: for a revocable trust, the entire corpus counts as a resource available to you (N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.11(e)1.i). Every dollar in the trust counts toward the $2,000 resource limit. Putting your house into a revocable living trust does absolutely nothing for Medicaid eligibility. If sheltering assets from long-term care costs is the objective, that requires an irrevocable trust under completely different rules, including the five-year lookback.
What It Actually Does Well
With the myths cleared away, here is what the trust genuinely offers. First, privacy: probate is a public process and your will becomes a public record, while a trust is administered privately by your successor trustee. Second, out-of-state property: a Florida vacation home or Pennsylvania condo held in the trust avoids a separate probate proceeding in each of those states.
Third, incapacity planning. Your successor trustee can step in and manage trust assets without court involvement — but only for assets actually in the trust. Property left outside it may still require a guardianship proceeding, and a court-appointed guardian can, with court approval, exercise your powers over the trust itself. A trust is a strong incapacity tool, but it does not replace a durable power of attorney or healthcare documents. As noted above, it also does not help an incapacitated person qualify for long-term care Medicaid.
Fourth, control over distributions. You can keep a minor child's inheritance in trust until an age you choose, and in a blended family you can provide for a surviving spouse for life while preserving the remainder for your children. One caution: if a beneficiary has a disability and receives means-tested benefits, a standard revocable trust can disqualify them — that situation calls for a special needs trust, a different instrument.
The Step Everyone Skips: Funding the Trust
The failure I see more than any other: someone pays several thousand dollars for a beautiful trust document, takes it home, puts it in a drawer, and never funds it. A trust only controls the assets you actually transfer into it — the house needs a new deed, the accounts need retitling, and each transfer takes paperwork.
An unfunded trust is an expensive stack of paper. Assets left outside it go through probate exactly as if the trust did not exist, which means the client paid for probate avoidance and got probate anyway. If you create a trust, fund it promptly and completely, and review it whenever you acquire significant new assets. Treat funding as part of the engagement, not homework for later.
When I Tell Clients Yes — and When I Tell Them No
I recommend a revocable living trust without hesitation for clients who own real estate in another state, have strong privacy concerns, want incapacity planning beyond a power of attorney, have minor children with significant assets, or are navigating a blended family.
I talk clients out of one just as often. If your estate is straightforward — a New Jersey home, bank and investment accounts, everything going to your spouse and then your children — a well-drafted will, current beneficiary designations, and payable-on-death designations accomplish essentially everything a trust would, at a fraction of the cost. A properly drafted and funded trust typically runs several thousand dollars. Spending that to solve a problem you do not have is not planning.
The Bottom Line
A revocable living trust is a tool, not a magic wand that solves all potential problems. It does not cut your taxes, does not protect assets from creditors or Medicaid, and in New Jersey it does not buy the dramatic probate savings the seminars may advertise. What it does buy — privacy, control over distributions, incapacity planning, and multi-state simplicity — is genuinely valuable for the right family. The right question was never "should I get a living trust." It is "what problem am I trying to solve." If the answers involve privacy, out-of-state property, minor children, a blended/second family, or incapacity, a trust may be exactly right. If they involve taxes, asset protection, or fear of New Jersey probate, you are being sold a solution to a problem you do not have — and the documents you actually need are a current will, a durable power of attorney, a healthcare proxy, and a living will. Before you sign anything at a seminar, talk to an attorney who asks about your family first and reaches for a product second.
by Jose D. Roman | Jul 7, 2026 | Medicaid, Medicaid Planning, Qualified Income Trusts, Trusts
The New Jersey Appellate Division decision, A.D. v. Essex County Department of Family Services, A-2316-23 (decided May 5, 2025), illustrates how a Medicaid application for long-term care can unravel not because the applicant was ineligible, but because of confusion over income rules and missing paperwork. The case involved a resident of an assisted living facility in West Orange whose application was denied twice by the agency and twice appealed — with the Administrative Law Judge ruling in the applicant's favor both times — before DMAHS rejected those decisions and the Appellate Division affirmed the denial. The court's reasoning touches on several issues that arise regularly in NJ Medicaid applications for long-term care: what counts as income, when a Qualified Income Trust is required, and what happens when you cannot produce exactly the documentation the agency demands.
The Income Limit and the QIT Requirement
To qualify for Managed Long Term Services and Supports (MLTSS), the NJ Medicaid program that covers long-term care benefits an applicant must meet both a resource limit and an income limit. The resource limit is $2,000 in countable assets. The income limit is a gross monthly income cap, which currently stands at $2,982 per month (for year 2026). If your income exceeds that cap, Medicaid will not approve your application unless you establish and fund a Qualified Income Trust, also called a Miller Trust or QIT.
A QIT is a legal arrangement in which the applicant's total source of income above the cap is deposited into a dedicated trust account each month before being used to pay for care. The trust does not eliminate the excess income — it channels it in a way the Medicaid rules permit. If the income is over the cap and no QIT exists, the application will be denied. For more on how this works, see my post on Qualified Income Trusts in New Jersey.
In A.D., the agency determined the applicant's income exceeded the limit and required a QIT. The applicant's representative pushed back, arguing that the VA Aid and Attendance benefit included in the applicant's income is not countable for Medicaid purposes and therefore no QIT was needed. The court rejected this argument — not on the merits of whether Aid and Attendance is countable income, but because the applicant never provided the documentation the agency needed to make that determination in the first place.
The VA Award Letter Problem
This is where the case turns practical. VA pension awards can include several distinct components: a base improved pension, an Aid and Attendance supplement, a Housebound allowance, a surviving spouse award, and others. For Medicaid purposes, different components are treated differently — some are countable income, some are not. The agency cannot make that determination from a letter that shows only a total monthly benefit amount.
New Jersey has addressed this directly in Medicaid Communications 12-09 and 15-08. Under those directives, an applicant receiving VA benefits must provide either a letter that specifically identifies the dollar amount allocated to Aid and Attendance, or documentation showing that the VA has determined the applicant's unreimbursed medical expenses reduce their countable income to zero. A letter showing only a lump-sum benefit amount is not sufficient.
In A.D., the applicant provided a VA award letter that showed a surviving spouse benefit with Aid and Attendance listed, but did not break out what portion of the total was attributable to each category. The agency sent a sample letter showing the format it needed and asked for a compliant document. The applicant's representative responded that the VA does not provide a separate breakdown — and directed the agency back to the letter already on file. The agency denied the application. The court agreed: without the itemized breakdown, the application was incomplete, and the denial was not arbitrary or unreasonable.
The Resource Limit and the Timing Problem
The applicant also sought Medicaid eligibility retroactive to November 1, 2022, arguing that her bank balance on that date was below the $2,000 resource limit because a check written to the nursing facility had cleared and reduced the balance to $335.80. The agency looked at the bank statement for the following month, which showed a balance of $2,696.71. The applicant argued a second check, written in early November, had also cleared by month's end and would have brought the balance below $2,000. The bank statement did not confirm that the check cleared when claimed, and the court found no basis to disturb the agency's finding that the resource limit was not met.
The clinical eligibility piece followed the same pattern. The applicant argued that a Pre-Admission Screening request made in December 2021 should establish her clinical eligibility date, but the regulation is explicit: clinical eligibility begins on the date the screening is completed, not the date it is requested. The record showed the screening was not requested until December 29, 2022 and completed January 9, 2023. The court found no evidence to support an earlier request date.
What This Means If You Are Applying
The A.D. case is a reminder that a Medicaid application for long-term care is a documentation-intensive process with little margin for error. Several things are worth taking from it.
First, if you or a family member receives a VA pension of any kind, obtain the most detailed award letter the VA will provide before filing a Medicaid application. If the letter does not itemize the dollar amount for each benefit category — Aid and Attendance, surviving spouse benefit, Housebound allowance, and any others — request an updated letter from the VA or contact a veterans service organization for help. The agency handling the Medicaid application needs that breakdown. A general award letter will not be enough.
Second, if your gross monthly income exceeds the Medicaid income cap, a QIT must be established and funded before the application is filed. It cannot be set up after a denial and applied retroactively. The income cap and the QIT requirement are not technicalities — they are threshold eligibility conditions.
Third, if you receive a request for information from the County Social Service Agency, respond fully and on time. The agency must give you an opportunity to provide missing documents, but if you cannot supply what is requested ask for more time or provide documentary proof establishing your good faith effort to respond. For more on how to challenge a denial you believe was issued in error, see my post on contesting an arbitrary Medicaid denial in New Jersey.
Finally, be precise about timing. Resource eligibility is determined month by month based on countable assets at the beginning of each month. Pending checks, deposits, and transfers need to be documented with bank statements that actually show what cleared and when. And remember that both financial eligibility and clinical eligibility must be satisfied at the same time — meeting one without the other is not enough.
Medicaid planning for long-term care is not something to approach without preparation. The rules governing income, resources, and documentation are detailed, and mistakes are difficult to correct after the fact. If you are in the five-year lookback period and considering a Medicaid application, see my overview of the five-year lookback rule in New Jersey for background on how prior transfers can affect eligibility.
by Jose D. Roman | May 19, 2026 | Estate Administration, Irrevocable Family Trusts, Probate, Trusts
If you have spent any time researching estate planning online, you have likely encountered some version of the following warning: probate is expensive, slow, and public — and you must plan aggressively to avoid it. Living trusts are pitched as essential. Horror stories of estates consumed by legal fees are used to justify the purchase of planning products.
In many states, that concern is legitimate. In California, for example, probate attorney fees are set by statute at a percentage of the gross estate and can easily reach tens of thousands of dollars on a modest home. In New Jersey, the situation is quite different. For the typical New Jersey estate, probate is a straightforward administrative process that is neither prohibitively expensive nor particularly complicated. Understanding what probate actually involves here — rather than what it involves in other states — should inform whether you need to go out of your way to avoid it.
What Probate Actually Looks Like in New Jersey
Probate in New Jersey is the legal process of validating a will, appointing an executor, and overseeing the distribution of a deceased person's estate. It is governed by Title 3B of the New Jersey Statutes and administered through each county’s Surrogate’s Court. In most uncontested cases, probate in New Jersey is largely an administrative process handled by the Surrogate’s Court staff — not a formal court hearing before a judge.
Here is what the process typically looks like for a straightforward NJ estate:
- Wait ten days after death — New Jersey law prohibits probate from being initiated within ten days of death, though paperwork can be filed in advance
- File the original Will and a death certificate with the county Surrogate’s Court
- Pay the filing fee — typically $100 to $200 depending on the length of the will and associated services requested
- Receive Letters Testamentary from the Surrogate, which authorize the executor to act on behalf of the estate
- Send notice of probate to all beneficiaries and next of kin within 60 days
- Notify creditors, pay valid debts, obtain any required NJ inheritance tax waivers, and distribute remaining assets to beneficiaries
In most cases, there is no court appearance required. The Surrogate’s staff process the application, issue the Letters, and the executor takes it from there. The process is bureaucratic, not adversarial.
What Does Probate Cost in New Jersey?
This is where New Jersey diverges most sharply from the states that give probate its frightening reputation. Court costs in New Jersey are minimal — the filing fees range from $100 to $200, which typically includes a small per-page fee for longer wills and a nominal fee for each short certificate (Letters Testamentary) issued.
Attorney fees are not set by a statutory formula in New Jersey the way they are in California or Florida. New Jersey uses a reasonable compensation standard, meaning attorneys may charge an hourly or flat fee, subject to the reasonableness standard. For a simple, uncontested estate — a house, some bank accounts, standard beneficiaries — attorney fees for probate typically range from $2,000 to $5,000. That is a meaningful cost, but it is not the ruinous expense that probate-avoidance marketing would suggest.
Executor commissions are set by statute in New Jersey at 5% on the first $200,000 of estate assets, 3.5% on the next $800,000, and 2% on amounts over $1,000,000, plus 6% of estate income. These commissions are payable to the executor — who is frequently a family member — and can be waived in whole or in part. In practice, family member executors routinely waive their commission entirely, particularly in smaller estates.
How Long Does NJ Probate Take?
The timeline for New Jersey probate is driven primarily by two fixed waiting periods, not by court backlog or procedural complexity. The first is the ten-day waiting period before the Will can be admitted. The second — and the one that sets the practical minimum — is the nine-month creditor claims period. Creditors of the estate have nine months from the date of death to file claims against the estate. Prudent executors wait for this period to pass before making final distributions.
For a straightforward estate with no tax issues, no disputes, and Class A beneficiaries only (spouse, children, grandchildren, parents), the total timeline is typically nine to twelve months. For estates requiring NJ inheritance tax returns — applicable to Class C and D beneficiaries such as siblings and more distant relatives — the timeline can extend to twelve to eighteen months due to the time required to obtain a tax clearance.
This is not fast. But it is not the multi-year ordeal that probate can become in other states or in contested New Jersey cases. For a family that is not in a hurry to sell real estate or access inherited funds, nine to twelve months is manageable.
When Probate IS a Legitimate Concern in New Jersey
The argument that probate avoidance is unnecessary for most NJ estates should not be read as an argument that probate is never a problem. There are specific circumstances where avoiding probate provides real, tangible benefits in New Jersey.
- Real estate in multiple states: If a decedent owns real property in more than one state, each state where property is located requires its own ancillary probate proceeding. This multiplies costs and complexity significantly. A trust that holds out-of-state real estate may avoid ancillary probate in each additional state.
- Privacy concerns: Probate is a public process. Wills admitted to probate become public records. In some counties, probate filings are searchable online. For individuals who prefer that the terms of their estate plan remain private — particularly the amounts left to specific beneficiaries — a trust-based plan keeps that information out of the public record.
- Blended families and anticipated disputes: When family dynamics suggest a heightened risk of Will contests or beneficiary disputes, probate provides a forum for those disputes to play out — which is both a feature and a liability. A trust-based plan can reduce the opportunities for litigation, though it does not eliminate them entirely.
- Incapacity planning: Placing assets in a trust serves a dual purpose: it avoids probate at death and provides a framework for managing assets during incapacity. For individuals who are concerned about future cognitive decline or who do not want to rely solely on a Power of Attorney for asset management, trusts can provide a more robust incapacity planning vehicle.
- NJ inheritance tax and Class C/D beneficiaries: Probate itself does not eliminate the inheritance tax, but the administration of estates with non-exempt beneficiaries is more complex and time-consuming. Proper planning can minimize the tax exposure, which is a legitimate goal independent of probate avoidance.
What Most NJ Families Can Use Instead of a Trust
For the typical New Jersey family — a married couple with children leaving their estate to each other and then to their children — several non-probate transfer mechanisms accomplish most of what trusts would achieve at far lower cost and complexity:
- Beneficiary designations: Life insurance, retirement accounts (IRA, 401(k)), and annuities pass directly to named beneficiaries outside of probate. Keeping these designations current is one of the most important and most overlooked aspects of estate planning.
- Payable-on-death (POD) and transfer-on-death (TOD) designations: Bank accounts and brokerage accounts can be set up with POD or TOD designations that direct the assets to named beneficiaries at death without going through probate. This is simple, free, and effective for liquid assets.
- Joint tenancy with right of survivorship: Real property held jointly with right of survivorship passes automatically to the surviving owner at death without probate.
- A well-drafted Will: For assets that do pass through probate, a clear and current will ensures that the Surrogate’s Court process is as smooth and efficient as possible. An outdated Will, or a Will that conflicts with beneficiary designations, creates the kind of confusion that turns routine probate into contested probate.
When a Trust Does Make Sense in New Jersey
None of this means that trusts are never appropriate for New Jersey residents. They are a useful and sometimes essential planning tool. The point is that the decision should be driven by the client’s actual circumstances, not by generalized fear of probate.
A trust is worth serious consideration in New Jersey when:
- The estate includes real property located in other states
- The client has strong privacy concerns about public probate records
- The client wants a robust incapacity planning structure beyond a Power of Attorney alone
- The family situation is complex — blended family, estranged beneficiaries, or a high risk of disputes
- The estate is large enough that the cost of creating and funding a trust is proportionally modest relative to the overall estate value
A trust is generally not worth the additional upfront cost — typically $2,000 to $5,000 or more for a properly drafted and funded trust, plus ongoing maintenance — when the estate is straightforward, the beneficiaries are Class A, and there is no out-of-state real property.
The Real Purpose of Estate Planning in New Jersey
This is perhaps the most important point of this post. For most New Jersey families, the primary reasons to engage in estate planning have little to do with probate avoidance. They have to do with:
- Incapacity planning: A Durable Power of Attorney, Healthcare Proxy, and Living Will are essential documents that have nothing to do with probate. They govern what happens if you lose the ability to make decisions for yourself. These documents are arguably more important than any probate-avoidance strategy.
- Medicaid planning: For families whose primary concern is long-term care costs and asset preservation, Medicaid planning — irrevocable trusts, spend-down strategies, spousal protections — is the more urgent priority. Probate avoidance is secondary to the question of whether assets will be consumed by long-term care costs or subject to Medicaid estate recovery.
- Clarity and family harmony: A clear, current Will that accurately reflects your wishes and is understood by your family is worth more than an elaborate trust structure that no one understands. The most expensive probate is a contested one.
- Tax planning for non-exempt beneficiaries: If your estate will pass to siblings, nieces, nephews, or more distant relatives, NJ inheritance tax planning is a legitimate priority that is entirely separate from probate avoidance.
Final Thoughts
New Jersey probate is not the monster it is made out to be in states where attorney fees are set as a percentage of the gross estate and formal court proceedings are required. For the typical New Jersey estate passing to a spouse and children, probate is a manageable administrative process with modest costs and a predictable timeline.
That does not mean estate planning is unimportant — it means that the goals of estate planning in New Jersey should be properly identified. Incapacity planning, Medicaid asset protection, clarity of testamentary intent, and appropriate beneficiary designations are the real priorities for most families. Probate avoidance is a secondary consideration that may or may not be worth pursuing depending on the specific facts.
If you are unsure whether your current estate plan — or lack of one — is serving your family’s actual needs, contact an experienced estate planning attorney.
by Jose D. Roman | May 12, 2026 | Estate Administration, Estate Planning, Last Will and Testament, Probate, Trusts
Can a testator include an arbitration clause in their Will that forces beneficiaries to resolve disputes in a private arbitration forum rather than a New Jersey court? For the first time, the New Jersey Appellate Division has answered that question directly — and the answer is no.
In a case published on April 21, 2026, In re Estate of Samuel P. Hekemian, the Appellate Division held that an arbitration provision contained in a Last Will and Testament is unenforceable under New Jersey law.
Background: The Hekemian Family Estate
Samuel P. Hekemian died testate in August 2018, survived by his wife Sandra and their four adult sons: Peter, Jeffrey, Mark, and Richard. His 2002 Last Will and Testament (2002 LWT) appointed his son Peter and longtime advisor Edward G. Imperatore, Esq. as co-executors and co-trustees of three testamentary trusts established under the Will.
The 2002 LWT contained an arbitration clause providing that any dispute regarding the interpretation of the Will or its administration “shall be submitted for settlement by arbitration.” The clause declared arbitration to be “the exclusive remedy” for resolving such disputes and stated that the arbitrator’s decision “shall be final and binding upon all interested parties and shall not be appealable to any court of law.”
The same arbitration provision appeared in reciprocal Wills executed simultaneously in 2001 by Samuel and Sandra that were prepared by the same New York attorney. When Sandra and Richard later filed exceptions to the co-executors’ first intermediate accounting of the estate, the co-executors moved to compel arbitration.
A Second Look at the Same Arbitration Clause
This was not the first time the arbitration provision had been challenged. In an earlier unpublished opinion, the Appellate Division had affirmed the denial of a motion to compel arbitration of Richard’s request for an accounting, finding that the clause was not the product of mutual assent under traditional contract principles and that it failed to explain that Richard was relinquishing his right to bring a claim in court. At that time, however, the court stopped short of declaring the arbitration provision categorically unenforceable.
In the intervening period, Sandra joined the litigation and filed her own exceptions to the co-executors’ accounting. Unlike Richard, Sandra had received distributions under the 2002 LWT. The co-executors argued this distinguished her situation and that her participation in the Will’s benefits, combined with the execution of the reciprocal 2001 Wills, established the mutual assent necessary to compel her to arbitrate. The trial court rejected that argument and denied the motion. The co-executors appealed.
The Court’s Holding: Two Independent Grounds
The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s denial, but went further than the lower court by issuing a definitive ruling on a question of first impression: arbitration clauses in testamentary instruments are unenforceable under New Jersey law. The court rested its holding on two independent and mutually reinforcing grounds.
1. Lack of Mutual Assent
An agreement to arbitrate, like any contract, requires mutual assent — a knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to pursue claims in court. The court reaffirmed its earlier conclusion that the arbitration clause failed to explain, in clear and unambiguous terms, that interested parties were relinquishing their right to sue. Citing Atalese v. U.S. Legal Servs. Grp., L.P., 219 N.J. 430 (2014), the court emphasized that “the point is to assure that the parties know that in electing arbitration as the exclusive remedy, they are waiving their time-honored right to sue.”
The co-executors argued that Sandra’s simultaneous execution of a reciprocal Will containing the same arbitration clause demonstrated her assent. The court rejected this. While a meeting of the minds is not required for a Will to be effective — because a Will is a unilateral disposition of property, not a contract — that principle cuts in the opposite direction for arbitration purposes. Precisely because a Will is unilateral, neither Sandra nor any other interested party was afforded the opportunity to consider or elect to waive their right to proceed in court. The court was not satisfied that the simultaneous execution of reciprocal Wills, without more, established the kind of informed, knowing assent required for a valid arbitration agreement.
2. Inconsistency with the Probate Code
Even if the assent problem could be overcome, the court held that arbitration clauses in Wills are incompatible with New Jersey’s statutory framework for estate administration. The Probate Code, N.J.S.A. 3B:1-1 et seq., vests the Superior Court with comprehensive authority over Will disputes, trust administration, and fiduciary accountings. The court catalogued the relevant provisions, including but not limited to:
- N.J.S.A. 3B:2-2 grants the Superior Court "full authority to hear and determine all controversies respecting wills, trusts[,] and estates, and full authority over the accounts of fiduciaries, and also authority over all other matters and things as are submitted to its determination under this title."
- N.J.S.A. 3B:3-17 during probate, the Superior Court "may take depositions to wills[,] admit the same to probate, and grant . . . letters testamentary or letters of administration with the will annexed."
- N.J.S.A. 3B:3-18 requiring that to "prove the transfer of any property or to nominate an executor, a will must be admitted to probate."
Against this backdrop, the court reaffirmed and expressly adopted what had been an observation in its prior unpublished opinion: “arbitration clauses that eliminate the courts’ expected role in resolving Will disputes are inconsistent with the detailed statutory scheme vesting the superior courts with the authority to adjudicate such issues.” Accordingly, enforcement of an arbitration clause in a testamentary instrument is contrary to both the Probate Code and New Jersey’s contract principles. The court held:
We conclude enforcement of an arbitration clause in a testamentary instrument is contrary to the court’s role underlying the Probate Code and inconsistent with our State’s contract principles.
What This Means for Estate Planning in New Jersey
The Hekemian decision settles a question that had been lingering in New Jersey estate practice for years. Estate planners and their clients should take note of several practical implications.
- Arbitration clauses in Wills are unenforceable in New Jersey. Regardless of a testator’s intent, an arbitration provision in a Last Will and Testament cannot compel beneficiaries, heirs, or other interested parties to resolve their disputes outside of court. Any such provision should be considered a nullity.
- Testamentary trusts are also covered. The court’s holding extends to disputes concerning trusts created under a Will, not merely the Will itself. The arbitration clause in the Will purported to cover disputes “regarding the interpretation of this Will and the trusts created hereunder” — both were held unenforceable.
- The result is the same regardless of mutual assent. Even if a testator and their spouse executed reciprocal Wills containing identical arbitration clauses, and even if the surviving spouse received benefits under the Will, that is insufficient to establish the knowing, voluntary waiver of court rights required under Atalese.
- Inter vivos trusts are a different question. The Hekemian decision addresses testamentary instruments — Wills and trusts created by Wills. Arbitration clauses in standalone inter vivos trusts, which are contractual instruments, may be treated differently.
- Will disputes belong in court. Beneficiaries and interested parties who find themselves in estate disputes in New Jersey have a right to litigate those disputes in the Superior Court, Chancery Division, Probate Part — and a testator cannot take that right away through a provision buried in their Will.
A Practical Note for Families
For families navigating an estate dispute in New Jersey, the Hekemian decision is significant. If a co-executor or trustee attempts to invoke an arbitration clause in a Will to divert your dispute out of court, that clause is unenforceable. You are entitled to pursue your claims — whether exceptions to an accounting, removal of a fiduciary, or other relief — in the Superior Court under the full protections of New Jersey law.
For those in the estate planning process, this decision underscores the importance of working with an experienced New Jersey estate planning attorney who stays current with developments in the law. Estate planning documents should reflect the current legal landscape, not aspirational provisions that courts will not enforce.
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.