Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Currently on The Swinton Law Firm Radio: A Case of Neglect
Barbara Salerno and her family thought their decision to send their 80-year-old father, Albert Salerno, to a nursing home would mean he would be safe and cared for--but they were wrong. Barbara tells the story of how her family was helpless in saving their father even though they visited him nearly every day. Nursing home staff minimized and explained away a sharp downturn in Mr. Salerno's condition. By the time he finally received medical attention; Mr. Salerno was in acute renal failure, had advanced pneumonia and was malnourished. He died a few days later.
Friday, July 1, 2011
Adult Children Losing $3 Trillion in Caring for Aging Parents
Americans who take time off work to care for their aging parents are losing an estimated $3 trillion dollars in wages, pension and Social Security benefits, according to a new MetLife study.
Meanwhile, the percentage of adult children providing basic care for their parents has skyrocketed in recent years.
Nearly 10 million adults age 50 and over care for an aging parent, MetLife says. For the individual female caregiver, the cost impact of caregiving on in terms of lost wages, pension and Social Security benefits averages $324,044. For male caregivers, the figure is $283,716.
The study also identified a dramatic rise in the share of men and women providing basic parental care over the past decade and a half. In 1994, only 9 percent of women and 3 percent of men and were providing care. By 2008, the percentage of women caregivers had more than tripled to 28 percent, while the figure for men had quintupled to 17 percent. "Basic care" is defined as help with personal activities like dressing, feeding, and bathing. Daughters are more likely to provide basic care and sons are more likely to provide financial assistance, the study found.
"Undoubtedly, the impact of the aging population has resulted in increased need within families for family caregiving support," the study notes.
At the same time, MetLife found that adult children age 50 and over who work and provide care to a parent are more likely to have fair or poor health than those who do not provide care to their parents.
The study was based on an analysis of data from the 2008 National Health and Retirement Study (HRS).
The findings have implications for individuals, employers and policymakers, MetLife concludes. Individuals, it says, should consider their own health when caregiving and should prepare financially for their own retirement. Employers can provide retirement planning and stress management information and assist employees with accommodations like flex-time and family leave.
On the policy side, although only a few states mandate paid family and medical leave, "clearly this policy would benefit working caregivers who need to take leave to care for an aging parent," the study notes. MetLife also notes that the CLASS Act, a voluntary long-term care insurance program that is part of the new federal health reform law, will provide some coverage for long-term care needs as well as raise public awareness of the issue.
For more on the study, "The MetLife Study of Caregiving Costs to Working Caregivers: Double Jeopardy for Baby Boomers Caring for Their Parents," click here.
Meanwhile, the percentage of adult children providing basic care for their parents has skyrocketed in recent years.
Nearly 10 million adults age 50 and over care for an aging parent, MetLife says. For the individual female caregiver, the cost impact of caregiving on in terms of lost wages, pension and Social Security benefits averages $324,044. For male caregivers, the figure is $283,716.
The study also identified a dramatic rise in the share of men and women providing basic parental care over the past decade and a half. In 1994, only 9 percent of women and 3 percent of men and were providing care. By 2008, the percentage of women caregivers had more than tripled to 28 percent, while the figure for men had quintupled to 17 percent. "Basic care" is defined as help with personal activities like dressing, feeding, and bathing. Daughters are more likely to provide basic care and sons are more likely to provide financial assistance, the study found.
"Undoubtedly, the impact of the aging population has resulted in increased need within families for family caregiving support," the study notes.
At the same time, MetLife found that adult children age 50 and over who work and provide care to a parent are more likely to have fair or poor health than those who do not provide care to their parents.
The study was based on an analysis of data from the 2008 National Health and Retirement Study (HRS).
The findings have implications for individuals, employers and policymakers, MetLife concludes. Individuals, it says, should consider their own health when caregiving and should prepare financially for their own retirement. Employers can provide retirement planning and stress management information and assist employees with accommodations like flex-time and family leave.
On the policy side, although only a few states mandate paid family and medical leave, "clearly this policy would benefit working caregivers who need to take leave to care for an aging parent," the study notes. MetLife also notes that the CLASS Act, a voluntary long-term care insurance program that is part of the new federal health reform law, will provide some coverage for long-term care needs as well as raise public awareness of the issue.
For more on the study, "The MetLife Study of Caregiving Costs to Working Caregivers: Double Jeopardy for Baby Boomers Caring for Their Parents," click here.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Why You Need to Plan for Long-Term Care
Thinking about a time when you will need help taking care of yourself is not fun. That is why most people put off discussing long-term care until it can't be ignored. But it is better to start long-term care planning early. Here are some reasons to start planning now:
For more information on the importance of long-term care planning, click here.
- People are living longer and are more likely to need long-term care. Life expectancies keep increasing, which means you are more likely to need help at some point. At least 70 percent of people over age 65 will require some long-term care services at some point in their lives, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
- Care expenses are high. Whether you receive care in a nursing home or at home, expenses are rising. According to the 2010 MetLife Market Survey of Long-Term Care Costs, in 2010 the average cost of a room in a nursing home was $83,585 a year and home care aides averaged $21 per hour. Those figures aren't going to start going down.
- Family caregivers may not be available. In more and more households, both partners work. In addition, children often move far away from their parents. This means that your adult children may not be able to easily take of you when the time comes.
- The earlier you plan, the better. By planning ahead, you may be able to preserve your assets instead of using them all up paying for long-term care. In addition, if you plan early, you may have more options for care.
For more information on the importance of long-term care planning, click here.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
What To Do When a Loved One Passes Away
Whether your spouse has just passed away or you've lost your mom or dad, the emotional trauma of losing a loved one often comes with a bewildering array of financial and legal issues demanding attention.
Those issues can wait. It is more important to take care of your loved ones and yourself first. When you are ready, the legal issues can be dealt with.
You should meet with an attorney to review the steps necessary to administer the decedent's estate. While the exact rules of estate administration differ from state to state, the key actions include:
For more details on steps surviving family members should take, click here.
Those issues can wait. It is more important to take care of your loved ones and yourself first. When you are ready, the legal issues can be dealt with.
You should meet with an attorney to review the steps necessary to administer the decedent's estate. While the exact rules of estate administration differ from state to state, the key actions include:
- File the will in probate court in order to be appointed executor.
- Collect the assets. This means that you need to find out about everything the deceased owned.
- Pay the bills and taxes. The final income tax return should be filed. If an estate tax return is due, it must be filed within nine months of the date of death.
- Provide an informal or formal accounting to the heirs and obtain their approval which is then filed.
- Finally, make the final distributions of the remainder of the estate to the heirs.
For more details on steps surviving family members should take, click here.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
A Trip to the Hospital May Put Assisted Living Residents on Medicaid at Risk of Eviction
|
Friday, March 25, 2011
A Brief Overview of a Trustee's Dutie
|
A trust is a legal arrangement through which one person (or an institution, such as a bank or law firm), called a "trustee," holds legal title to property for another person, called a "beneficiary." If you have been appointed the trustee of a trust, this is a strong vote of confidence in your judgment and probity. Unfortunately, it is also a major responsibility. Following is a brief overview of your duties:
In short, acting as trustee gives you a wonderful opportunity to provide a great service to the trust's beneficiaries. The work can be very gratifying. Just keep an eye on the responsibilities described above to make sure everything is in order so no one has grounds to question your actions at a later date. |
Friday, March 18, 2011
AARP Sues Government Over Reverse Mortgage Foreclosures
Charging that reverse mortgage borrowers were caught in what amounts to a regulatory bait and switch, the AARP's legal arm is suing the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on behalf of three now-deceased borrowers' surviving spouses who are facing imminent foreclosure and eviction from their homes.
The case involves the spouses of individuals who took out Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM), which are the most widely available reverse mortgage and are administered by HUD. A reverse mortgage allows homeowners who are at least 62 years old to borrow money on their houses. The loans do not have to be repaid until the last surviving borrower dies, sells the home, or permanently moves out.
The borrowers in the AARP case all died, leaving their spouses, who were not listed on the loan documents, living in the mortgaged homes. Because of the housing downturn, the homes are now worth less than the balance due on the reverse mortgage. None of the three spouses -- residents of Indiana, New York and Maryland -- can obtain loans for more than their homes are worth and so are facing eviction.
Since 1989, HUD rules governing reverse mortgages have stated that a borrower or heirs would never owe more than the home was worth at the time of repayment. But at the end 2008, the Bush administration abruptly changed this policy and said that an heir -- including a surviving spouse who was not named on the mortgage -- must pay the full mortgage balance to keep the home, even it if exceeds the value of the property. This, AARP says, violates existing contracts between reverse mortgage borrowers and lenders.
"HUD has illegally and without notice changed the rules in the middle of the game at the expense of vulnerable older people," said Jean Constantine-Davis, a senior lawyer with the AARP Foundation, the organization's charitable unit.
A spouse might not be named on the mortgage for a number of reasons: one spouse may have taken out the reverse mortgage before the marriage, or one spouse may be under age 62 and ineligible, or, more likely, lenders often encourage the younger spouse not to be named as a borrower because then the loan amount can be bigger. AARP notes that, perversely, under HUDs current rule a stranger can purchase the property for its current appraised value, but a surviving spouse cannot. The policy also negates a key purpose for which borrowers pay for insurance, AARP adds, pointing out that reverse mortgage borrowers have always paid insurance premiums to protect against going "underwater" -- owing more than their homes are worth.
The suit charges that HUD is ignoring another provision of the HECM program that protects a surviving spouse from being arbitrarily displaced from the home upon the death of the borrower.
"This is shameful and we intend to make HUD honor the representations and promises they made to borrowers when they signed up for these government-insured loans," Steven A. Skalet, of Mehri & Skalet, the law firm pursuing the case for the AARP Foundation. The case was filed in Federal District Court for the District of Columbia. HUD had no comment on the pending litigation.
Nearly one-quarter of all mortgaged homes are underwater, according to CoreLogic, a housing data firm.
For AARP's news release on the lawsuit, click here.
For a New York Times article on the case, click here. For excellent analyses by the Times and Reuters, click here and here.
For more on reverse mortgages, click here.
The case involves the spouses of individuals who took out Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM), which are the most widely available reverse mortgage and are administered by HUD. A reverse mortgage allows homeowners who are at least 62 years old to borrow money on their houses. The loans do not have to be repaid until the last surviving borrower dies, sells the home, or permanently moves out.
The borrowers in the AARP case all died, leaving their spouses, who were not listed on the loan documents, living in the mortgaged homes. Because of the housing downturn, the homes are now worth less than the balance due on the reverse mortgage. None of the three spouses -- residents of Indiana, New York and Maryland -- can obtain loans for more than their homes are worth and so are facing eviction.
Since 1989, HUD rules governing reverse mortgages have stated that a borrower or heirs would never owe more than the home was worth at the time of repayment. But at the end 2008, the Bush administration abruptly changed this policy and said that an heir -- including a surviving spouse who was not named on the mortgage -- must pay the full mortgage balance to keep the home, even it if exceeds the value of the property. This, AARP says, violates existing contracts between reverse mortgage borrowers and lenders.
"HUD has illegally and without notice changed the rules in the middle of the game at the expense of vulnerable older people," said Jean Constantine-Davis, a senior lawyer with the AARP Foundation, the organization's charitable unit.
A spouse might not be named on the mortgage for a number of reasons: one spouse may have taken out the reverse mortgage before the marriage, or one spouse may be under age 62 and ineligible, or, more likely, lenders often encourage the younger spouse not to be named as a borrower because then the loan amount can be bigger. AARP notes that, perversely, under HUDs current rule a stranger can purchase the property for its current appraised value, but a surviving spouse cannot. The policy also negates a key purpose for which borrowers pay for insurance, AARP adds, pointing out that reverse mortgage borrowers have always paid insurance premiums to protect against going "underwater" -- owing more than their homes are worth.
The suit charges that HUD is ignoring another provision of the HECM program that protects a surviving spouse from being arbitrarily displaced from the home upon the death of the borrower.
"This is shameful and we intend to make HUD honor the representations and promises they made to borrowers when they signed up for these government-insured loans," Steven A. Skalet, of Mehri & Skalet, the law firm pursuing the case for the AARP Foundation. The case was filed in Federal District Court for the District of Columbia. HUD had no comment on the pending litigation.
Nearly one-quarter of all mortgaged homes are underwater, according to CoreLogic, a housing data firm.
For AARP's news release on the lawsuit, click here.
For a New York Times article on the case, click here. For excellent analyses by the Times and Reuters, click here and here.
For more on reverse mortgages, click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)