A New York appellate court finds that because a Medicaid applicant's plan to transfer her home to her daughter was suggested by a hospital Medicaid specialist, undue influence was not at work. Mandell v. Finkel (N.Y. App. Div., 2nd, No. 2001-06388, Oct. 7, 2002).
In the course of applying for Medicaid during a hospital stay, Anna Kupferman expressed to the hospital's Medicaid specialist her fear that Medicaid would take her home, leaving her daughter, Beatrice Finkel, 'out in the street.' The Medicaid specialist informed her of Medicaid's homestead exemption, but Mrs. Kupferman had difficulty believing that this would be a permanent solution. The Medicaid specialist then advised her that she should 'change the deed to the home and make her daughter the heir to the property.' The attorney who prepared the deed explained to Mrs. Kupferman that she was transferring her house to her daughter. Ms. Finkel was present when the deed was executed, and held the deed as her mother signed it, but did not hold her mother''s hand.
The children of Mrs. Kupferman's deceased son charged that Ms. Finkel had exercised undue influence to induce her mother to convey the home to her by deed. The trial court set aside the deed, holding that although Mrs. Kupferman was of sound mind at the time she executed it, she was subjected to undue influence.
The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court reverses, finding that Mrs. Kupferman's plan to transfer the property to her daughter was suggested by a disinterested party. The court also cites evidence of an estranged relationship between Mrs. Kupferman and her son's children.
For the full text of this decision, click here.
Subscribe to the Knowledge Bank.
