In re Leona Carlisle Trust
Minnesota Court of Appeals
498 N.W.2d 260 (1993)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
James Carlisle (plaintiff) had severe cerebral palsy. His mother, Leona Carlisle, cared for James and assisted James with his daily living activities until she was no longer able to do so in 1979. James then applied for and was granted Medicaid, known as medical assistance in Minnesota, from Dakota County Human Services (the county). To be eligible for medical assistance, an applicant could not have more than $3,000 in assets. In 1985 Leona placed $125,000 in trust for James’s benefit. Under the trust, the trustee had sole discretion to distribute money to James for James’s entertainment, education, travel, convenience, and reasonable luxuries. The trustee had no obligation to make any distributions to James. The trust further provided that the trustee could not make distributions for food, shelter, clothing, medical care, or any other of James’s basic necessities, and that the distributions could only supplement but not supplant public assistance. In 1992 the county determined the trust was an available asset and James’s benefits would be terminated. James filed a petition seeking an order that the trust was not an available asset. The trial court held that the trust was an available asset, and James appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Anderson, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 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.