Godown v. Department of Public Welfare
Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
813 A.2d 954 (2002)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
In 2000, Albert Godown (plaintiff) and his wife transferred their 10-acre residence with a house, apartment, and commercial greenhouse to their children for $1. The property’s fair market value (FMV) was $500,000. The transfer left Godown and his wife with almost no assets. At the time of the transfer, Godown had mobility issues and used mobility aids. The next year, Godown suffered a stroke that left him unable to care for himself. His wife, who was legally blind with diabetes and heart disease, was unable to care for him. Consequently, Godown applied to the county assistance office for Medicaid for nursing-home care. When the office learned of the earlier property transfer, it gave the children an opportunity to transfer the property back to their parents. However, the children refused. The department denied Medicaid to Godown, concluding that the recent property transfer for less than FMV created a presumption that the transfer was for the purpose of bringing Godown within Medicaid’s means threshold and rendered him ineligible. Godown contested, prompting a hearing at which Godown’s wife testified that the property was transferred to the children to keep it in the family, not to qualify for Medicaid. However, the hearing officer upheld the initial determination that Godown was ineligible. Pennsylvania’s Department of Public Welfare (department) (defendant) affirmed that decision, and Godown appealed to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Leadbetter, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 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.

