- 17 -
luck. The loan was a way to tack between these two dangers. It
ensured that the money would be there during Kimberly’s minority,
but with a towline attached so that if Kimberly were ever forced
to rely on Medicaid, the money could be taken out of the
Management Trust and she could qualify after spending down only
$450,000 rather than nearly $1.5 million. Her parents would then
have the resources from which they could continue to meet her
needs that were unmet by Medicaid.
In deciding whether the allocation as a whole lacked
substance, we return again to the important role of the Probate
Court under Ohio law. Probate courts’ decisions in this area are
discretionary--as the Hickses’ personal injury lawyer credibly
testified: “Some judges don’t like special-needs trusts, because
some judges think that that money should go to the state, and
that’s just a strong philosophical belief. Some judges don’t
mind the loss-of-society claims; some judges do.” And unless
there is an abuse of discretion, an Ohio appellate court “will
not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.” In re
Estate of Steigerwald, 2004-Ohio-3834, at par. 17 (Ohio Ct. App.
2004) (discussing allocation of wrongful death suit). Ohio is,
moreover, wonderfully blunt about why it gives Probate Courts
this degree of deference: to “protect minors against others whose
interests may be adverse to theirs, especially their parents.”
In re Guardianship of Matyaszek, 824 N.E.2d 132, 143 n.7 (Ohio
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007