Estate of Rosenberg v. Department of Public Welfare
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
679 A.2d 767, 545 Pa. 27 (1996)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
Louis Rosenberg died in 1976. Louis’s will gave his wife, Mary Rosenberg (plaintiff), $157,000 and placed the remaining $65,000 of his estate in a trust. The trust agreement directed the trustee to pay the net income to Mary, and in the trustee’s sole discretion, to use the principal for her comfort, welfare, and maintenance and support, and for her medical and surgical expenses. Following Mary’s death, the remainder of the trust was to pass to Louis’s then-living issue. During Louis’s lifetime, he had a pattern of giving money to his children and grandchildren, and he established trusts for his grandchildren. Mary and Louis were relatively healthy and did not need public assistance during Louis’s lifetime. In 1987 Mary moved to a nursing home. By 1992 Mary had spent the $157,000, and she applied for Medicaid. To be eligible, an applicant had to have less than $2,500 in assets. The Department of Public Welfare (DPW) (defendant) ruled that the $55,000 in principal remaining in the testamentary trust was an available asset and denied benefits. While Mary’s claim was pending, she died, and her estate (plaintiff) was substituted as plaintiff. The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court affirmed the DPW’s denial of benefits. The estate appealed, arguing Louis intended Mary to use public-assistance benefits to preserve the trust corpus.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Flaherty, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
