Elderly partners forced apart - MARRIAGE EQUALITY NOW!

[Junkie Brewster]

This is heartbreaking and disturbing. Even in Sonoma county, hardly a bastion of the tealiban, the legally documented wishes of a dying man were disregarded due to the gender of his partner.

http://bayarea.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/20/suit-charges-elderly-gay-couple-was-forced-apart/?emc=eta1">Suit Charges Elderly Gay Partners Forced Apart

Mr. Greene, a 78-year-old gay man from Sebastopol, has filed a lawsuit against Sonoma County after saying he sustained a spate of indignities at the hands of officials during a bizarre estate battle that took place when his partner, who was 88, fell and became hospitalized in 2008.

SNIP

Mr. Greene’s troubles began when Harold Scull, his partner for more than 20 years, fell down the steps of their home in April 2008. At the time, the complaint said, Mr. Scull was showing signs of mental impairment.

County officials successfully petitioned the court to gain some powers of conservatorship. Then they “sold, kept, converted to their own use, and otherwise disposed of” almost $500,000 worth of belongings from the home shared by the two men — including furniture, art objects, memorabilia from the years Mr. Scull spent working in Hollywood, as well as a truck and two cats, the lawsuit alleges.

Mr. Greene said that he and Mr. Scull had previously specified each other as executors in case either became incapacitated, but the county ignored the legal documents and the history of their relationship, and at one point referred to Mr. Greene as Mr. Scull’s “roommate.”

Citing the state of Mr. Greene’s mental health, county officials then moved him against his will into a nursing home and sold the rest of his belongings, the suit charged. He was not allowed to visit Mr. Scull, who died several months later, in August 2008.

SNIP

On another instance, Mr. Greene claimed that employees acting as the county’s Deputy Public Guardians rolled their eyes and said in his presence, “you know how those gay boys are” and later expressed “displeasure at dealing with expressions of grief by a gay man who had lost his longtime partner.”

Oh yeah, real manly, bullying and mocking an elderly widower. What a fucking tough guy.

[Tailormyst]

1. This is such an incredibly sad story

And this is why we need equality NOW.

[happyslug]

3. But required by Federal Law

Federal law says you must be on Welfare before the Federal Government will pay for your long term nursing home care. Every State in the Union is dependent on these federal grants to pay for long term nursing care so all of them follow federal law. Federal law does permit protection of a spouse (Which by another federal law can NOT be of the same sex). Now Federal law does say you have to observe state law as to what is whose property, but since the lease or deed of the real property appears to have been in the name of the person now in a Nursing home, that is presumed to be hid property only and as such must be sold for his upkeep and once sold and the person in the nursing home no longer has any assists then and only then does he go on Welfare and his long term nursing care is paid by the Federal and State Governments.

My point is this is NOT a gay thing, if the parties lived in a state the recognized the concept of Joint property the property could NOT have been sold without BOTH parties permission (The person in the nursing home is viewed to have given his permission do to being under the care of the State, thus the only question is the permission of the person NOT in the Nursing home).

My point is this less a "gay" problem then what affects anyone who is in a Nursing home. Federal Law requires all assists to be sold to pay for the nursing care BEFORE any federal funds are used for that purpose. Once those assets are sold then the person goes on Welfare and the Federal and State Governments pick up the tab. The Federal Government does recognize a spousal exception but only if there is a valid marriage (i.e. living together is NOT enough, through a VALID Common Law Marriage is but it has have to had been entered in a State that recognizes Common Law Marriages as Valid Marriages NOT just people living together).

The whole thrust of Welfare law is to minimize the cost to the State and Federal Governments and that is the problem in this case NOT anything anti-gay. This is the general rule of law as set by Federal law as to Welfare and the harshness of that rule.

[Tailormyst]

5. Only because the law treats gay couples as unequal

Had they been able to marry this would not have happened. This IS anti-gay and it is an example of WHY we need equality right now. RIGHT NOW.

I think the congress and administration think we are lying when we tell them "Not one more dime, not one more minute of time". They expect they can trot out the gay issue next election and we will all coming running.

[happyslug]

8. The couple could have avoided this by making sure all property was jointly owned.

They did not and like heterosexual couples in the same situation the person whose name is NOT on the property has no rights. With marriage you have a presumption that all property is jointly owned, but that is all you get out of marriage when it comes to property AND you can get almost the same level of protection if you list the property as being jointly owned. The person in the nursing home did NOT do that and the person outside the nursing home still stayed in the relationship. Sorry, even if this was a straight couple, the person whose name was NOT on the property would be out of luck. The issue is NOT marriage but making sure BOTH parties name is on the deeds, leases and other indications of ownership.

By the way I have seen married people get screwed in similar deals, where the spouse's name is NOT on the property and it was purchased before the couple was married (and this NOT marital property). This is a welfare law problem, NOT a gay rights problem and has been a known problem for Heterosexual couples for 30-40 years (at least).

[Tailormyst]

11. If they had been Hetrosexual they would have been married

This IS an equality for gay couple issue.

[happyslug]

26. But if they had been heterosexual and NOT married, the survivor would be in the same situation

The law recognizes a very narrow exception for a spouse (A Spouse is NOT even an heir to a Spouse, a Spouse has certain spousal rights BUT those rights are NOT of an heir. This is both good and bad, it is good for Spousal rights can NOT be cut out in a will, while rights of a heir can be. It is bad in that it is limited in scope, in my home state of Pennsylvania the first $20,000 and 1/3 of the estate over $20,000, under the Common Law, 1/3 life estate in Real property only (if a wife, if a husband 100% life estate but included the obligation to perform any required military duty tied in with owning the land, more important during the middle ages then afterward).

As to people living together, that gives the survivor nothing, be their a Straight or gay couple.

[Ms. Toad]

48. The point is that they are legally prohibited from being married

so regardless of whether or not an unmarried straightcouple would be treated the same as an unmarried same gender couple, this is an issue of marriage equality because the unmarried same gender couple cannot choose to take advantage of the rights available to straight couples.

I am legally married to my partner of nearly 29 years, and we have all of our documents in place and all of our property is jointly held, but when one of us becomes too frail to care for herself, our state - because of the marriage discrimination amendment - will treat us as legally unrelated to each other, and may well choose to disregard our legal documents because recognizing them may be considered recognition of our marriage. But for the strong support of our families, we could find ourselves in the same situation as this couple.

Limiting your analysis to the issue of property, and simplistically pointing out the parallels between the legal treatment of an unmarried straight couple (who chose not to take advantage of the opportunity to be married) and the legal treatment of an unmarried same gender couple (who was barred from making that choice) is, frankly, insulting.

[happyslug]

49. My comments was directed more at Public Welfare then anything else

And to explain the law as it is NOT as anyone wants it to be. You may dislike what the law is, but it is the law and we have to work with the law as it is.

The thrust of my statement is directed to the issue of Welfare and Medical assistance (Medicaid) and how they had an affect in this case NOT any claim that the county did right in this case (and the attorneys representing the estate and the survivor obversely do NOT believe the county did right in this case).

In all states, if someone is a dependent of the state (i.e. in a nursing home) the assets of that person must be sold for that person's care. There is a narrow exception for a married couple (And even it is restricted). The whole thrust of the law in NOT being anti-gay, but to keep costs to the Federal and State Governments to a minimum. I am pointing out the welfare law aspect of this article and how to avoid such debacles.

In the case we are all talking about, greed and anti-gay attitudes were clearly additional factors, but the law the Defendants stood on was Welfare (Medical assistance) NOT any anti-gay law. I have severe problems with what that county did in this situation but they were standing on Welfare and Medicaid law when they acted. I suspect greed was the biggest factor (and not so much personal greed, but the additional income for their agency from the proceeds of this man's estate).

Please note, while the Complaint sounds like the County did wrong, it may come out at trial the county did all it could to minimize any loss of property value and just the cost for the deceased upkeep was that high ($4000 a month for Nursing care is NOT unheard of, thus almost everyone in a Nursing home is sooner or later on Medicaid) and thus the County may be able to account for all of the assets they took and sold. All we have is the Complaint of the plaintiff and they statement as to the facts of the case, we have NOT heard from the Defendants and their position as to this dispute.

Side note: In all states the chief cost for the Welfare Department is such nursing home care, NOT welfare checks. That Medicaid is the chief cost of Welfare showed up in the last recession where the states could NOT do their usual stunt to balance the budget, by cutting welfare. The reason for this is that the same Federal law that requires people to use all of their assets before they get on Medicaid, also forbids states from cutting off payments to people in nursing homes. Thus the states can NOT cut their welfare costs by any significant amount. The number of people on Welfare and how much they get on welfare is so small that cutting what remains of such welfare grant barely affects the budgets of the states (unlike in previous recessions when the first thing the State cut was welfare payments).

[Ms. Toad]

55. The OP was about what happened to this couple

because they were denied the right to be married. The complaint, and welfare law are only a small part of that story - yet your initial response was to suggest that what happened to them was required by Federal law. Much of it was not - and the larger point is that had the couple been allowed to be married even the part of it you argue was merely the even handed application of Federal law to all unmarried couples would not have happened.

Even though welfare laws are not, by their language, intended to exclude gay - as opposed to generally unmarried - couples, the fact that the laws are even applicable in this case is specifically directed at gay couples because of the Federal marriage discrimination laws. Under state law (in most states) and under Federal law, there can be no such thing as a marriage benefit which does not specifically target gays because most states and the federal government took express steps to bar same gender couples from the application of any law granting rights associated with marriage. The welfare law did not have to be specifically written to exclude gay couples from the benefits of marriage; the marriage discrimination act took care of that.

[donco6]

58. Thank you.

I was trying to put my finger on what was wrong, and you did it.

[liberalhistorian]

41. It is my understanding that they had the house in both

of their names. If that is the case, then the county totally ignored that, along with their legal power of attorney documents. Had they been married, that would not happened and would not have been permitted. But they couldn't marry under the law, so it most certainly IS a matter of both welfare law AND marriage equality.

[happyslug]

47. My Scanning of the complaint, was BOTH were in some sort of care at the same time

Thus the state had the right to go after either party's property. Now, it appears that the County took way to much and thus the lawsuit. You can NOT take people's property without a showing that you spent it on their care, if the money is NOT spent it was go to the person's heirs. In a nutshell that is the lawsuit, the county took the money BUT did NOT use it for the care of the person whose property it was AND did not return what was NOT spent. The county can justify taking the property on welfare grounds, but the executrix can demand an accounting and did so in the Complaint (and she sign the complaint in addition to the Plaintiff). Furthermore the County is under a duty to return to the Estate any property NOT spent on the care of the deceased (and it is claims such property exists and was NEVER returned).

As to a married couple, a similar thing could have happened if the county thought both of the couple were incompetent (which appears to have been the case here except the two people involved were NOT married). Thus the issue is a simple request for a accounting of the deceased assets (and additional claims to the actual property and how it was sold and otherwise disposed of).

[Ratty]

19. It IS a "gay thing"

As others have pointed out, simple legal marriage would have made all of this moot. They named each other executors and that didn't work. How many legal hoops are they supposed to find and jump through just to anticipate every possible situation they could find themselves in, when simple legal marriage would have covered them all. To say this has little to do with them being gay ... wow, just, wow.

[awoke_in_2003]

43. +1000

k&r

[Bluenorthwest]

2. This is what those who oppose equality wish to see happen.

This is what they mean by defending marriage. This is what they want. It is in fact, what they demand. It is that simple.

[happyslug]

6. This is a Welfare problem NOT a marriage equity issue,

Welfare law is what is driving the actions against these two people NOT that they are gay. The same rule would apply of they were of opposite sexes and not married. Now there is a narrow exception for married couples, but only as long as one of the couple is alive and outside a Nursing home. If outside a nursing home and living in the house, a surviving spouse can stay in the house of the person in a Nursing home. If for any reason the surviving spouse in NOT living in the house, the house must be sold for care of the spouse in the Nursing home.

Now in many states the above is avoided by putting both names on the property both people are living in. In my home state of Pennsylvania that is called "Joint Property" as long as it contains language that the property goes to the survivor of the joint owners. Thus if both person's name was on the property, it could NOT be sold for the debts of one of the joint owners (yes, very similar to marital property but the two joint owners do NOT have to anything in common except the joint ownership of the property). Thus it is possible to work around this problem under existing law IF BOTH PARTIES DO SO, but that does NOT seem to be the case in this case. What the State did was take the assets of the person in the Nursing home and sold them to pay for the care of the person in the Nursing home. Since the property was NOT owned by anyone else (was NOT marital or Joint property) the person NOT in the nursing home had no right to the property and as such the property had to be sold to take care of the person in the Nursing Home. That has been the law for at least 30 years and applies to everyone whose name is NOT on the property.

[Tailormyst]

12. Actually- self -delete

You are not fucking worth another minute of aggravation.

[liberalhistorian]

17. You are full of shit. First of all, you do not have to be on

welfare in order for Medicaid to pay for long-term care. The county makes a determination of how much you and/or your spouse is able to contribute and then pays for any amounts after that. I know this personally, as this is how my stepdad's nursing home care is paid for and he and mom have never been on welfare a day in their lives. They take a little less than half of his pension every month and then Medicaid pays the other three thousand a month for his care. Mom then lives off the rest of his pension. They couldn't force her to give up the house or sell any possessions in it, period. That would have been illegal. As long as a spouse is living in the couple's house, they CANNOT force it to be sold even if it is in only one of the spouse's names. Now, if there is no spouse, then they can, indeed, require that the house be sold and its proceeds used first before Medicaid will pay for anything. That is what happened with my grandfather several years ago; grandma had been dead for several years, so my dad and his siblings had to sell the house and use the proceeds for his nursing home care before Medicaid kicked in.

So, yes, it IS a matter of marriage equality, PERIOD. Gay couples should not have to bend their lives over backwards legally to accommodate hateful biased social service, legal and governmental personnel. The fact that their airtight, LEGAL power of attorney and other LEGAL documents were completely ignored, and that they got away with that, with not following LEGAL documents that they had the legal duty to obey and enforce, shows just how biased they were. Just like the hospitals that ignore completely legal power of attorney documents and aren't held to account for it legally when they damn well should be. I have the feeling that had they been heterosexual and unmarried, instead of gay, that this likely wouldn't have happened and that their legal directives would have been obeyed and enforced.

It should be a crime for hospital and county workers, or any similar agencies/individuals, to ignore legal and legally enforceable documents, and to substitute their own biases and hateful prejudices. They should be held criminally responsible.

[happyslug]

25. Medicaid is WELFARE

Medicaid is what the Federal Government calls its Medical welfare program and as such subject to asset limits set by the federal and State government. Many states call their medical welfare program by other names, including Medicaid, but it is still welfare and as such subject to asset limitations.

As to your parents, under the law in every state your mother had a property right in his pension and as such what is being taken out for the nursing home is the entire pension LESS the part of his pension plan she is viewed as the owner of. Pensions are often the subject to marriage settlements for the same reason. The key is that it is a valid marriage and as his wife she is entitled to one half of his pension he earned during the marriage. I do NOT know how California is viewing such pension plans when it comes to gay couples, but since no pension is mentioned I must assume there is none.

As to the documents, unless it gives the person not in the Nursing home some property right to the property, the county had the right to take those items, sell them and use the proceeds for the care of the person in the Nursing home. That is the law of land, you may dislike it but all the papers he had just gave him the right to handle the estate AND whatever rights he had to the estate is subject to the right of anyone who had a claim against the estate (Which includes the county to pay for the Nursing home care).

Sorry, someone can leave you something in a will, but if the Creditors of that person are NOT paid first, you will NOT get anything under a will. In this case the County had a superior claim to the assets of the person in the Nursing home and no matter what the papers said, those claims have to be paid FIRST. If that leaves nothing for anyone mentioned in a will, then that person will get nothing.

[Junkie Brewster]

34. Okay, so the creditors took everything

Why did they have to prevent his partner from visiting him?

[happyslug]

35. I scanned the complaint

And a statement is made about their cats, and that some derogatory comments about both of them being gay were made, but the main thrust seems to be the lost of property.

Now, I only scanned the complaint and it is mentioned that the Plaintiff was also taken to a facility for the elderly but I did NOT see any accusation of deliberate separation EXCEPT for the time both of them were in different facilities (Which probably ended up with a denial of visitation but the grounds was NOT because they were gay, but they were in two different facilities, as I mentioned I scanned the documents I was not reading them for details).

My scanning of the Complaint indicate a thrust to property, probably because the courts are happier to deal with issues of property then social issues. Furthermore what harm did the Plaintiff incur do to being denied access? You can NOT reduce that to a fixed number and the courts tend to hate speculative claims, and thus the emphasis is on actual financial harm more then any claim for emotional harm.

Why the denial of access? I do not know, most nursing homes have no problem with visitors provided they are not they to steal from the person in the home (Not an uncommon situation). I should note the actual facility the person died in is not named as a defendant (again I scanned the document not read it for details so I may be wrong) for it only receives money for the care provided. The actual thrust of the lawsuit is on the County and how it disposed on the deceased property AND how did it spend that money. If the person died before the money was gone (rare but not unheard of) any remaining money has to be turned over to his estate and that seems to be what the lawsuit wants in addition to damages do to the unjust imprisonment of both people.

[liberalhistorian]

42. You are seriously naive enough to believe that

anti-gay sentiment played no role in this? Seriously? And you're in the legal field? It takes all of five minutes working in the legal field in any capacity, as I have and am, to see just how easy it is for those in positions of control and/or power to put their prejudices and biases into practice with little accountability.

[happyslug]

44. I did NOT say that, all I pointed out the bigger push was welfare law

Anti-gay sentiment came into play, but it was the application of welfare law that caused all of the problem. The problem was the under Welfare law if you have assets the State has the right to take those assets to pay for any welfare paid medical care. Welfare was the driving force behind this action (back up by greed and anti-gay sentiment but compare to Welfare law those were minor additional factors).

[HillbillyBob]

30. I have read the story last week

They had legal title wills etc. The house was a rental they put two unwilling people in to nursing homes. Maryland does this on a regular basis to anyone who is on medicaid even if the property is titled in both names of a married couple. I have seen that happen. I have lived in 5 states and have seen the law twisted to suit the thieves in 3 of them.

Your arguments are all hot air.
I have seen this happen over and over when properties were jointly owned.
Titles, deeds, power of attorneys, thousands of dollars in legal set up only to be told at the end of life of one partner that they are still legal strangers.

The 'real' family comes in and steals joint accounts, even the remaining personal properties, some quite valuable such as grammy awards and gold recoords in the case of a friend that was a record producer/songwriter that the deceased family had no claim toward, hell they even took his clothes and piano.

It IS an equality thing, no matter how much you blather you do not have all the answers.
Welfare is not medicaid/medicare.
Welfare no longer exists as it did before BC 'reformed' it. Medicaid is health care assistance, welfare was straight financial assistance in the form of a monthly check.
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/04/19/Gay_Elder_Abuse_Suit_Filed_Against_Sonoma_County/

In some states the right of survivor ship is automatic if both are on the deed to real estate. In many states that law may be on the books but it is not enforced on gay couples even some straight unmarried who are common law married.
My grandmother and her second husband were together for just a few weeks shy of 50 yrs they were treated as married, but he only survived her for 4 days. His family tried to take the trailer they lived in at the end. He had a lot of property all over the area and had wills etc..They did not take the trailer and lot, but the tried.
I can recite some pretty horrible stories from the early hiv aids days.
In fact I have posted to the other threat about this same story.

[happyslug]

33. You missed my point, the issue is who to pay for the Nursing home care

And that comes under Welfare law and as such MUST be paid first. Now, I have seen people try to defeat wills and joint ownership of property concepts, but most fail for the courts will tend to do what a will does AND also tend to accept the concept of surviving co-owner.

Now, I notice most of what you cite is regard to Personal Property not real property. Ownership of Real property MUST be filed with the state and as such hard to steal. Personal property is easy to cart off and such theft (and that is what it is) is easy and have seen it done in Straight families (I have NOT had to deal with to many gay couples thus I can not say from personal experience as to gay couples). I have had co-owners of property find their home empty out by the deceased co-owners family. I end up telling the surviving she (generally it is a she but occasional a he) they can file an action in Court of Theft and if that is unsuccessful file an action to return the property whenever the estate is probated. Yes, it cost money and often most people just give up as what was taken is NOT worth the cost of recovery, but it is the same if a theft took the items, unless you catch the theft and bring a criminal action against the theft (or a civil action to recover the property if the Criminal action is unsuccessful) the theft gets to keep what he stole. It is a weakness of out system of law, you have to be willing to pay to get justice.

As you pointed out about your Grandmother, her lover's family tried to take her property but she had to fight them for it. Such fights are common in estates for to many family members expect some sort of gain at the death of a family member and take that death as an opportunity to make a gain. That is not being anti-gay as just being greedy. My point was the best way to protect who you want to get the property. Once you are gone it is up that the survivors to decide what to fight over and all you can do is give such survivors as much legal rights as can be given them. Greedy people will try to steal what they can and all you can do is to give your rightful heirs as much legal grounds as you can.

[QC]

13. "God is in the mix!" n/t

[EFerrari]

20. It's theft. I've never thought of it in this way before. nt

[Lyric]

4. Read the official legal documents. You'll end up in tears.

I couldn't finish it. Too heartbreaking.

http://www.thestranger.com/images/blogimages/2010/04/19/1271722918-greene_v_sonoma_county.pdf

:cry:

[happyslug]

7. That is just the Complaint,

Furthermore, I do NOT see the parties prevailing at trial, for the simple reason what the Defendants did is required by FEDERAL LAW and the purpose of the Federal law is to restrict any federal payments for long term nursing home care to those people who can NOT afford it themselves. Thus people have to spend all of their assets on nursing home care AND then go on welfare where the Federal and State Government will pick up the tab.

Some people just do NOT want to accept the hard facts of welfare law and that it applies to long term nursing home care.

[liberalhistorian]

18. Again, you are full of shit. Medicaid law as it relates to

long-term care, as I've said above, is different from general welfare law and these actions WERE NOT REQUIRED of county workers. Further, I see the plaintiffs prevailing simply because of the county's blatant disregard of LEGAL and legally enforceable documents that the county was required to obey and enforce.

[Bunny]

27. Do you realize that happyslug is a practicing attorney who actually

specializes in this very field of law? :shrug:

[Tailormyst]

29. That doesn't excuse what he is doing

He blamed the victims for not knowing in advance every damn hoop they would have to jump through. The very point of it all is that none of this EVER should have happened. If the couple would have been allowed to marry like Hetro couple are then perhaps they wouldn't have to die alone and scared, separated and destitute.

This IS a gay issue. No matter how many times he says "it's not a gay thing" won't change that fact.

[happyslug]

31. I am NOT blaming the Victim, I am explaining the law

And welfare law is quite harsh. I use to joke when I had a copy of my states Welfare regulations. It took up almost four feet on one of my shelves. Of that immense work (Now on line if you want to look at it) only one page said what people would get in welfare payments. The thrust is to minimize costs more then anything else.

Now, there are ways around these restrictions. The BAR association has even had classes on how to avoid losing your property when a love one goes to a Nursing home. IF you are careful and plan carefully you can avoid what happened to this couple BUT THE ONLY WAY TO DO SO AT THE PRESENT TIME IS TO UNDERSTAND THE LAW AS IT IS not as we would like it to be. Thus my comments are more in the form of a warning to make sure you do what is right under the law NOT to rely on the law. Furthermore this has been a big problem with welfare law for decades and made worse by the welfare reform of the 1990s. Just a word to be careful and to attack the right enemy, which is the restrictions imposed by Welfare. For Gay rights will NOT affect what happened here if the parties are NOT careful. As I pointed out this would have happened this way even if the couple were an unmarried heterosexual couple. Marriage would have helped, but the better solution (and one that helps even a married couple) would be to make sure all property is in both people's name and that was the underlying problem in this case more then it being a gay couple.

[donco6]

38. How do you make sure artwork and jewelry is in both names?

Or pets? Or memorabilia?

[happyslug]

40. If the house is in both names, the presumes everything is in both names

That is the law in Pennsylvania. Now it is a presumption and as such can be overcome by evidence but the burden of proof is on the person claiming such personal property is NOT held in the same name as the real estate it is located on.

Please note this presumption applies if you own the property or lease the real estate. If the real property is in both names, the law presumes all the other property is held in the same name. Now, the most common occurrence of this presumption being overcome is when you have some sort of title to a piece of property (For example the title of a Automobile). The Automobile may be on property held in one name, but if the title to the Automobile is held in anther name, that title is enough to overcome the presumption.

My advice is such situations is get the real estate in both people's name. Then have two wills giving each other the entire property. This gives you a one two punch, the first being the property is in BOTH NAMES and goes independent of any will as Joint Property. The second "punch" is the will itself, giving the survivor total rights in anything the deceased owned. I recommend this for married couples and for people who have lived together (And are NOT planning to break up, if a couple breaks up the jointly owned property has to be divided but that is another story). You should also have Durable Power of Attorneys for each other in case something happens to one of you.

Now if you are over age 60, you may want to put the property in the name of someone younger i.e. You and the younger person with right of Survivorship (I tell elderly clients to do this with a younger relative they trust). Also name the younger person as your heir in any will. I would hesitate giving such younger person a Power of Attorney until they are married and their children are out of school (Children and education are to tempting for young parents when it comes to assets of other, nothing intentional, they tend to want to pay it back, but the temptation is just to much for such young people who are starting their lives, better to get someone whose children are grown and thus the person is secure as to job and care of his or her children). Will this solve most of your problems? NO, that is what keeps the Justice System running but it will solve most problems or at least make sure what you wanted done better then anything else.

[happyslug]

28. I have been dealing in Welfare law for almost 20 years

And throughout that period Medicaid was called and considered Welfare in every state that I know of. Obviously you do NOT want to accept that fact, but that is not unusual for welfare is unpopular and no one wants to think that they or someone they love is on welfare.

As to this action, I have seen lawsuits against people in Nursing homes and have to tell the person being sued why (and that the home could NOT kick them out even if the lawsuit was NOT paid, it was just a way to get a lien on the property of the nursing home resident). It is all the same basic law, with some changes permitted and required by Congress, most such changes reflect efforts to minimize costs NOT anything else.

[piedmont]

51. Please make your point without the personal attacks.

Calling the other poster "full of shit" only undermines your argument.

[Tailormyst]

52. The person you choose to scold is not the one blaming the victims or insisting it's not a gay thing

Really?

[piedmont]

53. You've accused someone of doing that, but made no reply to him when he responded.

Go argue with him about what he said.

[Tailormyst]

56. Because after a bit of back and forth he was mired in a view I find disgusting

His insistence on it not being a gay thing and laying the blame on the victims over and over was a bit to much. I did respond to him multiple times. After a while it's just no longer worth it. If I were speaking to someone like him in the real world, with views like his, after a while I would turn and walk away and frankly avoid any further contact with the person. I do the same here.

[liberalhistorian]

59. I'm sorry, mother. I'll go to my room now

and never, ever do that again. :evilgrin:

[Lyric]

45. They were required by federal law to physically and emotionally abuse these men?

Riiiiight.

Read the document. Not ALL of the claims are about the property.

[happyslug]

50. But the thrust is that way, and such property loss is easier to prove.

it is harder to prove what was the value of the emotional harm to the Plaintiff, and given his age and life expectancy, how do you determine the value of such losses? The courts tend to like give a judgment on something it can put a clear dollar figure on, such as the property and avoid judgments on what the Court can dismiss as speculative damages. Thus the attorneys thrust is on the financial aspects of the case and the emotional harm is just added on.

My comment as to Federal and State Law is that if the County determined that they were incompetent (And that is the claim of the County) the county had the right to take the assets of such incompetents, sell those assets and use the proceeds for the care of such incompetents. That is what Federal and State Law requires and what the County apparently did in this case (The Plaintiffs claim other wise but that is up to the Judge to decide once all the facts are presented to the Judge).

Elderly abuse is mentioned in the Complaint and will be addressed by the Judge for such abuse is NOT permitted by Federal and State law, but at the same time the County must do all it can to recover all assets of such incompetents to use to pay for such incompetents long term care. Recovery of such asses is mandated by Federal and State law.

[Junkie Brewster]

15. Oh wow.

Also, I love Dan Savage.

[greencharlie]

9. our generation's civil rights struggle... nt

[happyslug]

10. Increase right to Welfare?

Never go anywhere, even Obama embraced the welfare reform of the 1990s that made it even harder to avoid the state taking your assets to pay for your long term Nursing home care. If you understand Welfare law you quickly see this is a WELFARE problem not a gay problem and as such is NOT popular with any large part of the voters.

[greenbird]

14. I'm not familiar with CA law, but

what you are saying is true here in NY. An attorney I worked for handled this all of the time. You have to get the deed of your house out of your name beyond the set look-back period, or you'll get a medicare lien slapped on your property to try to recover costs. Being married does not change this, unless you have joint ownership. My husband and I are currently redoing the deed to our house to fix this situation.

I am appalled at what happened to these two men, and I've been very active trying to get the story viral with my fb friends. Apparently the contents of their house were taken, too, and I'm pretty sure that doesn't fall within the welfare laws you are referring to. I have no doubt that there was a huge amount of bigotry involved in this case, but I also would be willing to bet that they got caught in that welfare law trap, too.

So sad.

[happyslug]

22. Same in Pa, but the limit is $250 in total assets

Now the Federal exemption for Welfare tends to be $2000 (Thus the exemption under the Tansitional Aid for Needy families, TANF, program which is 50% federally funded), but elsewhere we have to go by the STATE exemption for someone on Welfare and that is $250 total i.e. BOTH real and personal property. Most states have similar laws, through it is often hard to determine the value of personal property (other than an automobile) so it is often ignored, but in this instance the personal property was extensive and valuable and thus had to be sold to pay for the Nursing care.

[EFerrari]

16. Being prevented from the bedside of your dying partner is NOT a welfare problem.n/t

[happyslug]

21. This action is the taking of property NOT anyone greiving over his loss

Remember the topic, it is a discussion of the taking of the property by the state NOT anything else, thus it is welfare law kicking in NOT any law that discriminate against gays.

[EFerrari]

23. Are you serious? Maybe you need to reread the OP>

They were separated and Greene's partner DIED in the hospital without Greene being able to see him.

[happyslug]

24. The lawsuit clearly points out it is a property claim

And that is what I was discussing AND what the lawsuit is aimed at. If the hospital denied him access that is a different cause of action, one aimed at the nursing home NOT the county who put him in the nursing home.

[EFerrari]

32. Oh, please. n/t

[Mojeoux]

54. You Practice in Pa? What chance do you think this guy has? N/T

[Bluebear]

36. This story for those who tell us that our rights are a "pet issue" & "poutrage"

To hell with you.

[donco6]

39. And evidently it's all our fault for not knowing the law.

I guess it really sucks to be gay and ignorant. :sarcasm:

[Odin2005]

37. There are no words...

:grr:

[supernova]

46. Horribly sad

:cry:

We have to have marriage equality

[mamaleah]

57. This story makes me so sad. And it makes it even more clear that

something needs to be done to make sure this never happens again. Marriage equality.

Oh, and throw the useless government scumbags.....erm.....workers.... who did this in jail too.

[Bryn]

60. Too Late for me to Rec so here's the kick

Loving gay partners shouldn't be apart!! This is a crime.