The New Jersey Superior Court reversed and remanded a trial court’s orders granting summary judgment to the daughter of a nursing home resident and denying the nursing home’s motion for summary judgment. The Superior Court found that the trial court failed to make specific factual findings to support its legal conclusion that the daughter was not liable under a statute prohibiting the nursing home from enforcing a guarantee agreement or individual liability against the daughter for the amounts owed by her deceased father or concerning other contractual obligations the nursing home claimed she breached. Bartley Healthcare, Inc. v. Ott, No. A-3336-23 (N.J. Super. App. Div. Aug. 15, 2025).
Before he died in 2022, Robert Ott was a resident at a nursing facility, Bartley Healthcare, Inc. (Bartley). At the time of Robert’s initial admission and subsequent readmission, his daughter, Laura Curcione, signed two letters of responsibility awaiting Medicaid eligibility as his agent under a power of attorney (POA). She acknowledged that she was responsible for managing Robert’s funds and resources and was obligated to pay Bartley for services rendered out of his resources until his Medicaid application was approved. Laura also acknowledged that she had submitted the Medicaid application and agreed to pursue its approval. In addition, she signed another agreement to pay a balance due on her father’s account. Bartley made a demand for payment but did not receive it.
Bartley filed suit against Laura, alleging that she was liable for $19,669.74 for Robert’s care because she had failed to provide the documentation and verification of resources necessary to obtain Medicaid. Further, although Robert was eventually approved for Medicaid benefits, it was subject to a penalty arising from nonqualified transfers that Laura had failed to appeal. The trial court granted Laura’s motion for summary judgment, holding that she had signed the documents on Robert’s behalf under his POA. The court determined that when Robert died, the POA was extinguished and there was no representative of his estate. In addition, the court held that, pursuant to N.J. Stat. Ann. § 30:13-3.1(a)(2), Laura was not responsible as a guarantor or individually for Robert’s debt to Bartley. Bartley appealed, asserting that Laura was not liable as a guarantor but because she had breached the terms of the letters of responsibility by failing to diligently pursue Medicaid benefits for Robert, causing Medicaid to deny payment for some of his care. It argued that Medicaid would have paid for all or part of the outstanding amount due but for Laura’s breach.
On appeal, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, ruled that the trial court had failed to clearly state specific findings of fact and correlate them to its conclusions of law as required by N.J. Ct. R. 1:7-4. As a result, on appeal, the Superior Court could not discern the factual basis for the trial court’s conclusion that Laura was not responsible as a guarantor or individually for Robert’s debt to Bartley or concerning the letters of responsibility and agreements Bartley asserted that Laura had breached. Consequently, it reversed and remanded the case for the trial court to enter specific factual findings and corresponding legal conclusions.
The court also determined that N.J. Stat. Ann. § 30:13-3.1(a)(2) does not prohibit a nursing home from requiring an individual to enter into agreements, other than a guarantee of payment, or immunize an individual who undertakes contractual obligations not proscribed by that statute. It noted that its comments were not factual determinations and left the factual findings and corresponding legal conclusions for the trial court on remand.
Subscribe to the Knowledge Bank.
