State v. Hammans

870 N.E.2d 1071 (2007)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

State v. Hammans

Indiana Court of Appeals
870 N.E.2d 1071 (2007)

Facts

Nicholas Hammans was in an automobile accident in December 1994. He sustained a traumatic brain injury, causing him to be totally disabled and require 24-hour care. He was discharged from the hospital in March 1995 to the care of his parents (the Hammanses) (defendants), who received training to perform his physical therapy, deliver his medications intravenously or via injection, feed him through a feeding tube, change his tracheotomy tube, suction phlegm, and provide respiratory therapy. The Hammanses brought a lawsuit on Nicholas’s behalf arising out of the accident, and the proceeds were placed in a guardianship estate that the trial court supervised. The trial court then established the Nicholas W. Hammans Disability Trust (trust) and appointed the Hammanses as co-trustees, funding it with $200,000 transferred from the guardianship estate. The trust’s purpose was to allow Nicholas to remain eligible for Medicaid. In order to qualify for Medicaid in Indiana, an applicant had to meet both an income eligibility test and a resources eligibility test. If either was too high, the applicant would not qualify. Paragraph 4(c) of the trust directed the trustees to arrange for Nicholas to have services to enhance his quality of life to the greatest extent possible, and paragraph 4(c)(7) authorized expenditures for family members who provided special care or supervision to the extent of the reasonable services provided. Paragraph 4(d)(6) granted the Hammanses all the powers set forth in Indiana Code § 30-4-3-3, which authorized trustees to perform every act necessary for the purpose of the trust. On December 7, 2005, Nicholas died. The trust had a balance of $143,860. The State of Indiana (plaintiff) had paid $355,632.15 for Nicholas’s medical care through Medicaid. The Hammanses filed a verified petition seeking fees associated with the trust administration and compensation for the care they provided. The trial court issued an order authorizing payment of $140,000 to the Hammanses for their services, leaving only $1,360 in the trust for reimbursement to the state, plus attorney’s fees. The state appealed, challenging the trial court’s award of the bulk of the trust corpus to the Hammanses for co-trustee fees and for personal services they provided.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Crone, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 805,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 805,000 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership