Why You Might Be F#$% if You Live in One of These 30 States

[Justin Bilyj]

I know this is actually an old case, but when I read the actual case, it scared the crap out of me.

What am I talking about? The term is called "filial responsibility" and 30 states have laws that state if you're a parent, child or spouse of an indigent person that needed care provided by the state (Medicaid) that you're financial responsible for any left over remaining amounts.

As this issue EXPLODES into our society as the Baby Boomers get older there will be more stories similar to this one imo.

Here are the story links:

https://newoldage.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/unenforced-filial-responsibility-laws/

Nursing Home Bills and Filial Responsibility Lawsuits - ABC News

https://eldercareadvice.wordpress.com/2014/04/02/do-you-have-to-pay-for-your-parents-care/

https://www.elderlawanswers.com/son...age:d_flagship3_feed;0gJ05SO/Ss+kWQ42tLzhgA==

Here's a list of the states:
1. Alaska Stat. 25.20.030, 47.25.230 (Michie 2000)
2. Arkansas Code Ann. 20-47-106 (Michie 1991)
3. California Fam. Code 4400, 4401, 4403, 4410-4414 (West 1994),
California Penal Code 270c (West 1999), California Welf. & Inst.
Code 12350 (West Supp. 2001)
4. Connecticut Gen. Stat. Ann. 46b-215, 53-304 (West Supp. 2001)
5. Delaware Code Ann. tit. 13, 503 (1999)
6. Georgia Code Ann. 36-12-3 (2000)
7. Idaho Code 32-1002 (Michie 1996)
8. Indiana Code Ann. 31-16-17-1 to 31-16-17-7 (West 1997); Indiana
Code Ann. 35-46-1-7 (West 1998)
9. Iowa Code Ann. 252.1, 252.2, 252.5, 252.6, 252.13 (West 2000)
10. Kentucky Rev. Stat. Ann. 530.050 (Banks-Baldwin 1999)
11. Louisiana Rev. Stat. Ann. 4731 (West 1998)
12. Maryland Code Ann., Fam. Law 13-101, 13-102, 13-103, 13-109
(1999)
13. Massachusetts Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 273, 20 (West 1990)
14. Mississippi Code Ann. 43-31-25 (2000)
15. Montana Code Ann. 40-6-214, 40-6-301 (2000)
16. Nevada Rev. Stat. Ann. 428.070 (Michie 2000);
Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. 439B.310 (Michie 2000)
17. New Hampshire Rev. Stat. Ann. 167:2 (1994)
18. New Jersey Stat. Ann. 44:4-100 to 44:4-102, 44:1-139 to 44:1-
141 (West 1993)
19. North Carolina Gen. Stat. 14-326.1 (1999)
20. North Dakota Cent. Code 14-09-10 (1997)
21. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 2919.21 (Anderson 1999)
22. Oregon Rev. Stat. 109.010 (1990)
23. 62 Pennsylvania Cons. Stat. 1973 (1996)
24. Rhode Island Gen. Laws 15-10-1 to 15-10-7 (2000); R.I. Gen.
Laws 40-5-13 to 40-5-18 (1997)
25. South Dakota Codified Laws 25-7-28 (Michie 1999)
26. Tennessee Code Ann. 71-5-115 (1995), Tenn. Code Ann. 71-5-
103 (Supp. 2000)
27. Utah Code Ann. 17-14-2 (1999)
28. Vermont Stat. Ann. tit. 15, 202-03 (1989)
29. Virginia Code Ann. 20-88 (Michie 2000)
30. West Virginia Code 9-5-9 (1998)

What's your opinion on these laws?

 

[STIBROKER]

What's your opinion on these laws?

sounds like a opportunity to sell some life insurance......

 

[Justin Bilyj]

sounds like a opportunity to sell some life insurance......

life insurance or long term care insurance?

I wonder if that's (the filial laws) a legitimate point to bring up in a conversation about ltci?

 

[DHK]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filial_responsibility_laws

Quite frankly, it can feel like legal extortion on this... but since it's the law, it becomes a conversation on financial planning and risk management, particularly for prosperous adult children.

"Would you rather pay for this risk on a 'dollar-for-dollar' basis... or for 'pennies on the dollar'?

Perhaps life insurance on their parents and now their parents can take out a reverse mortgage on their home to help pay for these expenses as they arise, along with having access to income tax-free capital.

 

[Arthur Rudnick]

Although this law has been on the books for years, I believe that it was used only once in PA about 10 years ago.

I think it's a political hot potato and not something states want to pursue.

 

[VolAgent]

Although this law has been on the books for years, I believe that it was used only once in PA about 10 years ago.

I think it's a political hot potato and not something states want to pursue.

I would agree with this and that was my initial thought. Any elected official who made this a matter of policy might as well not bother running for re-election.

Also, while I can't find it again, I saw where they could go after the adult children even if they were not a resident of the state. I believe for one, this would automatically kick it to Federal Courts. Also, how would the state and the court have jurisdiction? If the adult child is not a resident of the state bringing the lawsuit, then they have not subjected themselves to jurisdiction by its laws or courts. It seems ripe to have the law thrown out or neutered. To claim that the adult parent gave them nexus seems reaching at best.

 

[Justin Bilyj]

Although this law has been on the books for years, I believe that it was used only once in PA about 10 years ago.

I think it's a political hot potato and not something states want to pursue.

Correction a case in GA and one in PA. I think this could be a trend that a bankrupt government, whose debt/obligations are already unsustainable let alone when factoring in Medicaid and future long term care needs, will try to use to get out of shouldering the costs...