Answer:      Transferring title of your home to a specialized Medicaid protection trust is recommended in order to provide the most flexibility and freedom in ownership.  Such a transfer will not take effect in the eyes of Medicaid until 5 years later, due to look back rules.  Your handicapped daughter residing in the home provides a unique planning opportunity, though.

Medicaid rules allow for certain exemptions to its strict recovery rules.  The government agency will disregard your home if it is being used by your disabled child as her primary residence.  You will be allowed to transfer the home to her if she is disabled.  However, an important distinction must be made between a “handicapped” and a “disabled” child. 

To qualify for the exemption, your child must be “completely and totally disabled”.  The definition states that the child must have no ability to earn money independently from a job or otherwise.  If your daughter is simply handicapped, but can still work and earn a living, you cannot take advantage of this exemption.

Perhaps we can look toward another exemption involving your child living at the home.  Children who reside with their parents and take care of them in their senior years are afforded a chance to take over your home.  Limitations apply which we will discuss next week.

Attorney James Haroutunian practices real estate, estate planning and business law in Billerica at 630 Boston Rd and can be reached with questions at 978-671-0711 or via email: James@hlawoffice.com.  His Website is http://www.hlawoffice.com.

After the couple received municipal approval and broke ground, to build their new home, the EPA issued a heavy handed compliance order demanding they stop construction and return the lot to its former agricultural state.  The penalty for non-compliance:  $32,500 per day!

The EPA alleged the couple violated the Clean Water Act, a federal law which is designed to preserve clean drinking water for US residents.  The lot in question was as dry as a bone, located among many residential homes.  In fact, the couple paid for expensive testing to prove the land was not a wetland. 

Amazingly, the EPA never produced a map, soil test, or any evidence showing the lot to be “wet”.  The real constitutional violation came when the EPA denied the couple any right to challenge their unsubstantiated position.  After the District Court and Appeals Court ruled similarly, the couple charged forward to the Supreme Court.  

With unanimous assent, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the citizens’ right to their “day in court”.  Why is this case important to folks in the Greater Lowell area?  Because, any one of us could have been put in the same position.  

The federal government’s agencies are broadly empowered by the US Constitution to enforce the law.  However, the same document protects citizens by providing access to the court for a “second opinion” to the government’s decisions.  We all deserve the right to challenge the US government, whether in Idaho or Massachusetts.  

It is nice to know the Supreme Court is supportive of this right, and allowed the couple to finally have a trial on the merits.  Though, something tells me during an election year, the federal government will drop their compliance order.  

Attorney James Haroutunian practice includes real estate and estate planning law.  Contact him with questions at the Haroutunian Law Office at 630 Boston Road, Billerica, 978-671-0711 or email at james@hlawoffice.com.

• 3 year statute of limitation for Wills to be probated.  In most cases, after 3 years, a Will cannot be used to pass estate assets.  Rules applicable to folks who die without Wills then applies;

• Easier and faster procedure – especially for uncontested estates;

• Higher limit for “Small Claims Style” of probate.  Now an expedited procedure applies to estates containing no real estate, and up to $25,000 of personal property (plus one automobile);

• Consolidation of titles.  Now only one name applies to prior titles of executor, administrator, executrix or administratrix.  Personal Representative is the moniker of choice for anyone handling an estate.  A welcome, though minor change.

For readers who are not familiar – or whom did not watch the 1999 Ashley Judd movie based on the concept – the “double jeopardy” clause of the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects people from being prosecuted, tried or punished twice for the same crime.  This protection does not apply in situations where a jury is unable to issue a verdict, otherwise known as a hung jury.

The term “hung jury” describes a deadlocked group of jurors in a criminal case.  After an appropriate amount of time, a jury who can’t reach a unanimous decision  about a defendant’s guilt or innocence, can call it quits.

If a jury is hung, the trial judge will declare a “mistrial”, allowing prosecutors to start the process over with a new group of jurors.  A prosecutor may choose to avoid a retrial, particularly if most jurors favored acquittal.  However, due to the public outcry in Mattapan over the mistrial, one can safely assume a second trial of Dwayne Moore will soon begin.

Attorney James Haroutunian practice includes real estate and estate planning law.  Contact him with questions at the Haroutunian Law Office at 630 Boston Road, Billerica, 978-671-0711 or email at james@hlawoffice.com.

When I was home, though, I logged into my Facebook account and freely shared my consumer opinions, likes and dislikes with thousands of advertisers.

This may not be news to the half billion users of Facebook’s website, but highlights the foundation upon which the company built its initial public offering (IPO) which was announced this week.  The company earns 85% of its $3.7 Billion revenue from advertisers who prey upon the information freely provided by Facebook’s users.

Facebook created a carefree market research engine as an alternative to weary methods of telephone polling and public surveys.  Facebook is essentially a global focus group of users who speak openly and honestly behind the proverbial mirrored glass.  Advertisers are allowed to peer into these conversations, while Facebook organizes and delivers the much valued consumer information.

In light of the IPO, which will give Facebook millions of new owners, Facebook users are encouraged to periodically check their privacy settings.  You may be surprised at what information is available for public consumption, and what advertiser alliances you have already created.  In the meantime, feel free to “like” my Facebook fan page named the “Haroutunian Law Office”.  LOL

I needed to prove that the LLC is currently operating and complied with procedural rules governing Mass. companies.  Namely, I had to show the LLC hasn’t been dissolved, filed its annual reports and paid all fees.  To prove this, an original stamped certificate had to be obtained from the Secretary of the Commonwealth in Boston.

In Boston, the clerk accessed a state computer’s database records to confirm the LLC was in good standing.  She then printed the certificate for me.  I drove this document into Cambridge where a clerk at the Registry of Deeds scanned the certificate into another state computer’s database.

From one state government’s computer system to another, this exercise highlights an antiquated and redundant system.  Though this process is longstanding, perhaps network technology has advanced to allow a more efficient solution.  Two divisions of the government’s executive branch could easily share records to streamline this frustrating procedure.  Until that day, I will try to enjoy my trips into the city.

In 1986, the company’s owner, Sally Daher gave the company (and its locked safe) to her relatives.  No key existed and nobody could open the safe.  So, the safe was abandoned in Lawrence parking lot.  In 2008, firefighters discovered the safe, and used their equipment to break it open, finding $178,496 inside.

In court, Daher’s relatives and the tow truck driver who moved the safe to the Lawrence parking lot, fought for ownership of the safe’s contents.  But the Judge decided: “Sally Daher is the true and rightful owner of all right, title, and interest in $178,496 found in the Daher Shoe safe”.

As such, the Massachusetts Division of Medical Assistance was allowed to recover this money to payback nursing care funds paid on behalf of Mrs. Daher.

Puritans who immigrated to Massachusetts to build a new life had several reason for disliking Christmas.  It reminded them of the Church of England and the old-world customs, they were trying to escape.  Christmas wasn’t considered a wholly religious day as December 25th wasn’t widely recognized as Christ’s birth date until several centuries after his death.  The holiday celebration mainly included drinking and feasting – things which the Puritans frowned upon.

One such tradition, “wassailing” entailed people of a lower economic class visiting wealthy community members and begging, or demanding, food and drink.  If a host refused, they faced the threat of retribution.

As a result, the strict community passed the following mandate quoted from the records of the General Court, Massachusetts Bay Colony - May 11, 1659:

“For preventing disorders, arising in several places within this jurisdiction by reason of some still observing such festivals as were superstitiously kept in other communities, to the great dishonor of God and offense of others: it is therefore ordered by this court and the authority thereof that whosoever shall be found observing any such day as Christmas or the like, either by forbearing of labor, feasting, or any other way, upon any such account as aforesaid, every such person so offending shall pay for every such offence five shilling as a fine to the county.”

In 1659, the ban became official. The General Court banned the celebration of Christmas and other such holidays at the same time it banned gambling and other lawless behavior, grouping all such behaviors together. The court placed a fine of five shillings on anyone caught feasting or celebrating the holiday in another manner.

The ban was revoked in 1681 by an English-appointed governor Sir Edmund Andros, who also revoked a Puritan ban against festivities on Saturday night.

Background movie actors earn $142.00 per 8 hour day of work.  The 9th and 10th hour worked earns “time and a half”.  From the 11th to the 16th hour, pay is “doubled”.  The unfortunate actor working over 16 hours in a day receives a “full day of pay” for each hour after the 16th.

When working in “hazardous” situations, slight pay increases apply.  Actors required to get wet (including rain) receive an additional $14.00, unless wearing swimming or surfing gear.

Amazingly, if a scene requires an actor to maintain his own facial hair, he earns an additional $18.00.

Use your own car, and earn $35.00 more per day.  Film a scene with your pet, and get $23.00 extra.  Use your skis or golf clubs in the movie and get $12.00 extra.

My favorite additional compensation comes if lunch is delayed.  Penalties for late meals earn a hungry actor up to $12.50 extra.  Trust me, you do not want to miss the meals at the craft service table.  I enjoyed a soft shell crab sandwich along with glazed roast pork.

For those aspiring actors ready to quit their day job, sign up with www.bostoncasting.com.  There you will find postings for commercials, TV shows and occasional movies being filmed in Massachusetts.

Answer: This issue has been litigated many times in the past.  Whether or not you are allowed to pave over the underground easement rights of a utility company relies upon the concept of “detrimental interference”.

Detrimental interference is an action by a landowner that results in a material increase in the cost or inconvenience to the easement holder.  If the utility company needs to access the lines under your ground, will their cost be materially increased to dig through your pavement?

In 1979, a Massachusetts appeals court ruled in favor of the landowner by deciding the cost and inconvenience of digging through pavement is not automatically deemed detrimental to the easement holder.