Tag: 3.2.7 Real property

DHA Case No. MDV 210958 (Wis. Div. of Hearings and Appeals March 13, 2024) (DHS) ↓ Download PDF The fair market value of real estate may be established by assessment, statements from realtors, or a comparative market analysis. In this case, the agency relied solely on the fair market value estimate it found on Zillow […] Read more

DHA Case No. MAP 211494 (Wis. Div. of Hearings and Appeals March 6, 2024) (DHS) ↓ Download PDF To be exempt homestead property, the property must serve as the individual’s primary place of residence. In this case, the petitioner owned real estate worth $25,000 and claimed he lived there in a tent, providing documents and […] Read more

DHA Case No. MGE 211382 (Wis. Div. of Hearings and Appeals February 29, 2024) (DHS) ↓ Download PDF The asset limit for SSI-related Medicaid is $2,000.00. In this case, the petitioner (a realtor) was able to exempt one vehicle, his homestead, and various properties used for self-employment; but the value of a few small, landlocked […] Read more

DHA Case No. MGE 210403 (Wis. Div. of Hearings and Appeals December 8, 2023) (DHS) ↓ Download PDF The assets in an irrevocable trust funded with the petitioner’s property are potentially available if there are any circumstances allowing payment from the trust to the petitioner. In this case, the petitioner established a Hedlund-type trust in 1996 […] Read more

DHA Case No. MGE 209206 (Wis. Div. of Hearings and Appeals November 8, 2023) (DHS) ↓ Download PDF DHA Case No. CWA 209207 (Wis. Div. of Hearings and Appeals November 8, 2023) (DHS) ↓ Download PDF The principal or income of an irrevocable trust funded with a Medicaid applicant’s resources is countable if there are […] Read more

DHA Case No. MAP 196477 (Wis. Div. of Hearings and Appeals January 13, 2020) (DHS) ↓ Download PDF To be eligible for the MAPP program, the individual’s countable assets must be below $15,000. Assets titled solely in a spouse’s name do not count for MAPP. In this case, the Department disenrolled the petitioner, apparently counting […] Read more

DHA Case No. MGE 199939 (Wis. Div. of Hearings and Appeals April 19, 2021) (DHS) ↓ Download PDF Non-homestead real estate is countable unless it is listed for sale with a realtor. In this unusual case, the petitioner owned some land with a mobile home, but realtors refused to list it because of its condition […] Read more

DHA Case No. FCP 181279 (Wis. Div. of Hearings and Appeals January 22, 2018) (DHS) ↓ Download PDF The Medicaid Eligibility Handbook allows business property to be exempted—regardless of value or rate of return—if the individual is “actively involved in the business operation on a day-to-day basis.” In this case, the petitioner had a history of renting […] Read more

DHA Case No. MGE 198872 (Wis. Div. of Hearings and Appeals August 12, 2020) (DHS) ↓ Download PDF The Medicaid Eligibility Handbook allows business property to be exempted—regardless of value or rate of return—if the individual is “actively involved in the business operation on a day-to-day basis.” Rental property is not exempt unless the owner is in […] Read more

DHA Case No. MGE 208281 (Wis. Div. of Hearings and Appeals May 30, 2023) (DHS) ↓ Download PDF The Medicaid Eligibility Handbook contains two main ways to exempt “property essential to self-support.” The property is (1) exempt (regardless of value or rate of return) if used in a business in which the individual is actively […] Read more

DHA Case No. MGE 170367 (Wis. Div. of Hearings and Appeals March 2, 2016) (DHS)  ↓ Download PDF This decision discussed two issues at some length. First, whether payments to the petitioner’s daughter were divestments; and second, whether the petitioner’s former home, now rented at fair market value, was countable. On the first issue, the […] Read more

DHA Case No. MGE 185074 (Wis. Div. Hearings and Appeals March 14, 2018) (DHS)  ↓ Download PDF In this straightforward decision, the petitioner owned home property in Michigan but was admitted to a Wisconsin nursing home. Her Medicaid application was denied because the agency “did not receive timely verification of any circumstance that would exempt […] Read more