In re Estate of Darby
Mississippi Court of Appeals
68 So. 3d 702 (2011)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
When Arlyn Darby moved into a Mississippi nursing home, he applied for Medicaid benefits. Darby’s daughter, Linda Stinson (defendant), signed an eligibility contract on Darby’s behalf. One provision stated that Darby and Stinson understood that the state’s Division of Medicaid (division) (plaintiff) could seek to recover the costs of provided benefits from Darby’s estate after his death. The contract defined the word estate as a person’s real and personal property. At Darby’s death, he owned a house valued at less than $75,000 and personal property with a total value of less than $10,000. His will devised the house and personal property to his children and grandchild. However, the division filed a probate claim against Darby’s estate (defendant), arguing that Medicaid had expended $123,716 on Darby’s care and was entitled to recover those costs from Darby’s property. Stinson, as the executrix of Darby’s estate, objected. She argued that Darby’s property was all exempt property under Mississippi law and therefore passed directly to Darby’s heirs outside of the probate estate. She claimed that because the property passed outside of the estate, it passed free of any claim to recover Medicaid expenses. The trial court granted summary judgment in Stinson’s favor, and the division appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (King, C.J.)
Dissent (Irving, 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.
