$350/hour for real estate attorney?

That sounds about right for a good attorney. Some attorneys will charge a lump sum, rather than an hourly rate, for a specific project, though.

Yup. If this person comes with excellent references, this is not an area to scrimp on expenses.

Don't the Managing Agent handles name change with the stock certificate if you show them a valid reason for name change?

JT-- The problem is that there is a mortgage on the property: changing the name on the stock also brings in the bank. New recognition agreement has to be done, possibly a refi will be triggered. It's been impossible to talk directly to the appropriate person at Chase to find out what we need to do, thus turning to a lawyer.

We simply want to remove my name because I am grievously ill and want to apply for Medicaid.

Medicaid excludes 1st residency for the calculation of whether you qualify for benefits or not

"You may also own a home, a car, and personal property and still be eligible. The income and resources (if applicable) of legally responsible relatives in the household will also be counted."
http://www.health.state.ny.us/health_care/medicaid/#qualify

notadmin, thanks for your response. Our catch-22: we had to leave the coop a few months ago, when I suddenly couldn't do the stairs (it's a 3rd floor walkup), and moved into a rental nearby. Our daughter has been staying there while we try to figure out what's next, given the likely trajectory of my illness, ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease). Now our Medicaid lawyer says that, because we moved out, it's no longer an exempt asset! We were thinking of just selling it, but the timeframe wouldn't work---I can't wait 6 months or more to apply for Medicaid.

Ay-yi-yi - my heart goes out to your situation. I'm not a lawyer but I can say as an agent that you will probably need new Aztechs, and you'll end up paying not only your own lawyer but also Chase's lawyer for the privilege.

Pricing for the atty. recommended to you sounds reasonable. If he doesn't work out I'd recommend Barry Skovgaard, who is one of my favorites and has a lot of compassion -- which it sounds like you need right now.

ali r.
DG Neary Realty

In the context of a seven figure home purchase, spending an extra hundred an hour for legal protection seems well worth it. The exception would be those who have "good reason" to believe this is cookie cutter.

Thank you, front_porch. Aztechs??

Oh-- I see....Aztech=recognition agreement. Do you think we need our own lawyer to redo these and be at the closing, or could the managing agent's attorney do this for us?

oh, sorry. Aztechs = the boilerplate recognition forms used for NYC co-ops. (Aztech was the company that wrote the boilerplate, I think).

ali

Big "I am not a lawyer" disclosure up here. OK? OK.

The Aztechs do a bunch of things, but from Chase's POV, an important function is that they say that Chase has lent you money for Apt. X. and that the shares and the proprietary lease that attach to Apt. X are pledged as collateral.

So if Chase has lent money to you and hubby, and it has shares and a lease that belong to you and hubby, when you switch those shares and lease to just hubby, it will generate new Aztechs.*

Since it's Chase's document, which secures their rights, they'll generate it. Since it's boilerplate, all your lawyer really needs to do is read it** ... but yeah, I'm with RS, I'd have YOUR lawyer who cares about your rights do it rather than the managing agent's lawyer (who cares about the co-op rights).

***

*Otherwise they'd run the risk that your hubby dies, leaving you owing them a loan that is now backed by no collateral whatsoever... & yes, your mortgage bank will charge you a few hundred dollars for the cost of its lawyers issuing this document which protects their rights.

** An Aztech is a pre-printed agreement that has room for the bank to fill in just a few spots -- name, number of shares, address of apartment, etc. Possibly because is fairly simple, I think it's often filled out by very junior people. I recently went through a deal where the bank's lawyers messed it up (I caught the mistake as an agent), we sent it back, and they messed it up AGAIN .. this was BofA, not Chase, but that happens all the time.

ali

I am sincerely sorry about your illness, mom.

In a bad situation we had with a non-cooperative bank, my congressman's staff was excellent at getting the bank to start talking to us and get on with what the bank was supposed to do. The congressman didn't take sides, but did monitor the situation until it was over.

I believe Cardozo Law School used to have a clinic for real estate matters for people in difficult circumstances. I'm not sure if they do now. You could call some of the area schools to find out if one of them has a clinic that can represent you. Also, if you are 60+ years old, you may be able to get legal assistance from the JASA organization.

The fee the attorney quoted you is actually not at the high end of the hourly rate these days.

boy do I hate it when an agency supposed to provide the ultimate safety net (medicaid) suddenly acts as a smart ass legal entity to NOT provide what they are paid (by us ) to provide. yet, as all government agencies pay themselves outrageous incomes, benefits, and retirement packages all stolen from the patients they should be serving.
outrageous.

>yet, as all government agencies pay themselves outrageous incomes, benefits, and retirement packages all stolen from the patients they should be serving.

Isn't that a bit much? Yes, we can agree that employment by the government means no profit motive and little risk and so lower pay seems to be part of the bargain.

what's a bit too much is on the part of an all powerful bureaucratic agency to abuse patients in bad faith. it is outrageous in my book.

Sounds like there are some problems you are aware of. I'm sorry to hear of that. Hope things work out better, soon.

Thank you all for your comments.

> notadmin, thanks for your response. Our catch-22: we had to leave the coop a few months ago, when I suddenly couldn't do the stairs (it's a 3rd floor walkup), and moved into a rental nearby. Our daughter has been staying there while we try to figure out what's next, given the likely trajectory of my illness, ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease). Now our Medicaid lawyer says that, because we moved out, it's no longer an exempt asset!

got it, very sorry about the whole situation. this article might be useful towards getting medicaid or at least a medicaid rate (medicaid negotiates a rate that's about a third of what paying privately would cost) in case you need/prefer nursing home while trying to keep assets for the family (like the home for your daughter). cause it might be that even when removing you from the certificate might be considered a transfer of assets to the detriment of getting an approval.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/12/nyregion/12medicaid.html

"boy do I hate it when an agency supposed to provide the ultimate safety net (medicaid) suddenly acts as a smart ass legal entity to NOT provide what they are paid (by us ) to provide. "

Of course, Medicaid is supposed to provide medical care for poor people, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that they'd try to exclude people with significant assets. If we had universal health care, your argument would be a lot more reasonable. (For that matter, insurance companies have a pretty bad history of trying to exclude coverage when people actually make claims, so it's not like the private sector is a model of virtue here.)

> Of course, Medicaid is supposed to provide medical care for poor people, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that they'd try to exclude people with significant assets.

people with significant assets that can comfortably pay a decade of nursing home on their own don't sign up for medicaid, as the best facilities don't accept it. the issue is about those with enough money to pay a few years but not enough to pay for the whole treatment when the disease is chronic.

you could argue "ok, then ask the family to pay for nursing home till they don't have any more money and then apply for medicaid". which makes sense except for the fact that the family will end up paying 3 times as much for each year than what medicaid would have paid for the same services. imho rates shouldn't vary like that depending on who pays.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. That Medicaid shouldn't means test? That our health care system is really broken?

In any case, as a society we've decided not to provide universal health care coverage or even universal catastrophic coverage. You can agree with that decision or not, but it's not Medicaid's fault that they try to means test when that's the way the program has been set up.

sorry, just to make it clear, i'm arguing that "imho rates shouldn't vary like that depending on who pays."

notadmin makes a very valid point regarding single-payer national health: under that system, National Health would have tremendous negotiating power in dealing with providers, resulting in efficient delivery of vital services. Under the present system, middle-class families are expected to bankrupt themselves trying to find decent care.

notadmin-- I don't think that point is in any way germane to your original argument that Medicaid is somehow screwing people over. In any case, the fault lies with the nursing homes for charging other patients more, not with Medicaid for actually negotiating a good deal.

single-payer national health: under that system, National Health would have tremendous negotiating power in dealing with providers, resulting in efficient delivery of vital services.

Completely ludicrous. Such systems exist and do NOT result in efficiency. decreased costs yes. but with very serious flaws.
In the english system an end stage renal failure patient of 60 has no access to transplant. a hip replacemnt necessitates 1 year of wait time. Many cancer medications are NOt available.
The french system (half public half private, rated world #1 by the UN) is soo difficult to navigate that the rich connected patients get everything for free, while the socially inept are left with very little.
Rich canadians get their treatment in Michigan (wait time for cardiac bypass 6 months, for an Public MRI 6 months).
Cuban citizen have access to ONE antibiotic: tetracyclins.and NO cancer chemo.they have one MRI for the whole country, used only for party apparachiks.

The US system is the most efficient and most performing.Its problem is the complexity of its funding. Hospitals/physicians provide a LOT of free care.

By what metric, nicercatch? Google the Gopnik v. Gladwell debate on this, some very salient points.

If you mean by $ spent/capita vs. life expectancy, U.S. is far from the most "efficient". If you have $ to burn & good insurance & can travel & have the connections to know which docs to go to, U.S. is the best.

There's no possible metric by which the US system is the most efficient (it costs more for equivalent outcomes, spends more on overhead, etc.). There are some metrics by which you might argue that it's the most effective, but these generally assume that you have a lot of money and/or good health insurance.

Regardless, we're pretty far off topic here.

the metric is individual outcome.
If you have unstable angina turning in Myocardial infarct in Paris (not a remote location) the odds are high you will die (50%). no urgent cath for you.the odds are low in the US. and paradoxically dying is a very good thing for the macrometrics of the system (cost=$0). but arguably pretty dismal if you're the patient.
They do not ressuscitate very premies in Cuba, nor in France: from a financial perspective it is great for society.

I myself have the choice of COMPLETELY free treatment in Paris (and I am very medically connected) and a very expensive treatment at Memorial Sloan in NYC (i'm binational).I now live half the time in the city for that. That's the metric I care about

"the metric is individual outcome. "

Please look up efficiency versus effectiveness in the dictionary.

Exactly. For someone like you, of course the U.S. is the best. For the average person, not so much. Few people have the access here to the "individual outcome" you speak of.

nicercatch, I wish you good luck in your cancer treatment.

Not everyone is so lucky as to be able to afford Memorial Sloan Kettering (an institution, by the way, and for better or worse, that is known to carefully select patients based on their likelihood of successful outcome, and to send too-far-gone cancer patients away for treatment elsewhere -- and in the spirit of egalitarianism, regardless of ability to pay).

I thought there was a "look back" period for Medicaid to stop people from getting rid of their assets so they can qualify?

Selling the apartment wouldn't work because of this?
Is there any loop holes such as getting divorced and keeping 0 assets? Its a horrible thought.... but

My 2 cents: the US system is very good for certain things--one is just totally dependent on market forces as a 'consumer' of health care. If I had brain cancer or heart disease or any number of other highly visible and profit-generating illnesses, I'd have no complaints. Surgery and mainstream pharmaceuticals are lucrative. Insurance covers them. Powerful national organizations and lobbies
(think pink ribbons) ensure that research money will be there. But I have ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease), an illness that's totally under the radar because it doesn't mesh with free-market medicine. Pharmaceutical companies have a huge market with obesity and sexual disfunction drugs...why invest in ALS with its relatively small consumer base?

Actually, there are nearly as many cases of ALS diagnosed in the US every year as multiple sclerosis, which commands a huge lobby and enormous amounts of research money. The difference is that people with ALS die so quickly that they are not around long enough to organize themselves as healthcare consumers worthy of notice.

A cure for ALS would be nice. But in the meantime what is needed is support for homecare--not highly profit-generating $250,000 surgeries or hospital stays,but $15/hr aids to dress and feed and put us on the toilet. Nobody gets rich providing that, so the only access to it for most people is Medicaid.

Comparing countries: ALS is a disease that very sharply illustrates middle-class people in the US dying directly because of lack of money. ALS patients in the US die statistically much sooner than in Canada, most European countries, Japan etc. The reason is that care here is unaffordable, and so when the repiratory system begins to shut down, all but about 5-10% of patients choose to die rather than burden their loved ones with caring for them on a ventilator. In the other countries, long-term support is provided by the governments and so a much greater percent of people choose to extend their lives by using ventilators--in Japan, for example, the figure is closer to 70%.

Well, getting back a little to real estate issues: if you OWN the place where you reside, you have an enormous advantage in terms of qualifying for Medicaid. The rule is that your house/coop/condo is an exempt asset. If you are a renter, you are reduced to total poverty before Medicaid will help you. Does this sound right?

bugelrex: In NY the lookback period for asset transfers is 5 years, but that is only for qualifying for a NURSING HOME, not HOMECARE assistance. For the latter, there is no lookback period at all.

If I'd known the Medicaid rules when I first became sick a year ago, I would have stayed in my walk-up coop until I'd filed for Medicaid. But I moved out because I couldn't manage the stairs, and now a lawyer tells me it is no longer exempt as an asset. If I could move back, I would, but it's impossible.

Of course, the lawyer brought up divorce! The problem there is that I would lose my primary health insurance, which is through my husband's job.

mom, I know of a case where a couple, in similar although not identical situation as yours, did get a divorce and, because the non-working spouse lost his/her insurance, medicaid was issued right away. Unfortunately, no matter how I talk about it, it will sound crass and awful but that's the reality. They needed medicaid, they got medicaid.

> Of course, the lawyer brought up divorce! The problem there is that I would lose my primary health insurance, which is through my husband's job.

did you read the article about "spousal refusal"? i provided you with the link in my previous post. divorce is not necessary. imho a crazy system sometimes demands a "crazy" response. sorry jordyn, i don't see the point of talking and talking about the craziness of the current system. the important thing is to find a solution that works for mom and her family.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/12/nyregion/12medicaid.html

2 things;
one quickly: the universal coverage/american system is like comparing a 2 star hotel/5 star. they do not compare in that they provide different services.Knowing very well both systems as a customer and a professional I would say that some americans have a "romantic"vision of UHC. that's all.

two:mom. your situation has been bothering all day. I think you have been wronged. now,bureaucrats/legalese like jordyn would ask you to look the definition in the dictionary and try to convince you that wrong is right because the rule says so. But Medicaid exists to be the ultimate safety net.not to play legalese semantics.
I would (humbly) recommend 2 things (not exclusive).
Appeal Medicaid thru apatient's advocate. the (stand alone)rule saying you must be in your own was there for a reason but that should not apply to you because the ONLY reason you (unknowingly)broke the rule is because: the disease they are to cover made it IMPOSSIBLE for you to stay.not your will. it's force majeure case that requires some flexibility.
If all else fails, do what commoner says:divorce and get medicaid.that's what it's for. for situations like that.

Thank you all for your comments. To recap: the coop we lived in for years is no longer an exempt asset because we moved out (stairs). Because my name is on the stock certificate,I cannot qualify for Medicaid. All I need to do toward that end is have my name removed from the stock certificate. But it's so complicated!! The coop board is agreeable, but the bank (Chase) won't talk to us. My husband has engaged a real estate lawyer,but I wish I understood more about the process to sort of keep an eye on the lawyer!

nicercatch: Just because I told you to look in the dictionary to understand the difference between two words doesn't mean that Mom should be excluded on the basis of a technicality. On the other hand, it doesn't sound like we're talking about much of a technicality here: Mom acknowledges that her coop isn't her primary residence any more, and as a result she's in possession of a large asset that disqualifies her from eligibility.

I understand that this is a horrible, difficult experience for Mom and don't know about the situation to comment with any specificity, but the notion that Medicaid is doing something wrong by trying to make sure that the program is really serving as a safety net is ridiculous, made doubly so by your insistence that government-run health care programs shouldn't even exist in the first place.

Jordyn, you must be joking. technicality? she never would have left the property but for her illness. i personally think that my ethics boundaries would have allowed for deception here, had it been a possibility.

medicaid is indeed doing something wrong, even if it is consistent with its mandate, if it doesn't have the flexibility to deal with a situation such as this.

Like I said, I'm not commenting on Mom's particular situation, but it's absolutely reasonable that Medicaid checks to see that people are actually poor before allowing them to benefit from the program. Our health care system generally assumes that people with resources pay for their own health care. I personally would prefer other systems, but it turns out most people don't agree with me, so that's the system we're stuck with.

actually, jordyn, we're not talking about that here. we're talking about someone who had to leave a property due to a disability. and then that property suddenly became an investment asset. i'm not opining as to whether or not medicaid checks that people are actually poor, but it is clear that this measure of wealth is not working. plenty of people with more money/assets would have done better. your argument is specious.

It seems strange that you're asserting that we're not talking about what I'm talking about when you're responding to me. But since it sounds like we're talking about two different things, it doesn't seem that useful to continue talking past one another.

okay, jordyn, what's your advice for this woman? other than to move to a country with universal health care?

is it reasonable for medicaid to immediately move her coop from home ownership to investment asset just because she can't manage the stairs? is there no ability for the gov't to review individual scenarios and determine that this is not a case of an investment ownership?

you say that medicaid should check to see if people are actually poor, but they wouldn't have had any problem had she still lived in an owned property. you don't see any discrepancy there?

you're right jordyn. it's better that u leave.
you would be a perfect bureaucrat (maybe u r). people's lives are not technicalities. And do not put words in my mouth. i never said government programs should not exist: they should:particularly medicaid as the safety net of last resort. I just warned of a universal system which is a giant robotic system where bureaucrats decide who lives or not. believe me I know the inner workings of both systems intimately.
u never win against bureaucrats, even when ur forced to pay for them.
good luck to you mom.sincerely

if you're not talking about mom's particular situation, wtf are you doing here? this is a thread started by mom asking for advice, not looking for your opinion about the health care system.

really, mom has enough on her plate with an aggressive disease. she doesn't need your pontificating on how well or not the system works. right now it kind of sucks for her.

mom, just treat the divorce (if necessary) as a bureaucratic piece of paper leading to obtaining another bureaucratic piece of paper that you NEED. The system is not designed to make its subjects happy. At least there is a way to use its flaws when you NEED to. Good luck.

You'll note I pointed out that this was all off topic a while ago. And now you seem to be arguing with yourself. Everyone agrees Mom's situation sucks. Some of us choose to blame the people have been forced to implement a crappy system; others of us blame the system. I don't think either of us is a paragon of virtue for postings that have nothing to do with Mom's actual question, but otherwise reflect our opinions on the broader topic.

mom
If it makes u feel any better about doing the divorce loophole, there are many people scamming the system. Here's an example that will make you cringe:

Many new legal immigrants come into the country and get married (but not on paper, have banquet, photos etc so they are seen as married in the community). They have kids and the mom immediately flies for single-mom welfare/healthcare benefits. They still live as a family under the same roof since enforcement is lax. They pay no income taxes as they work for cash at restaurants/taxi.

I know several that do this, unfortunately this is the system the government has created with big gaping loopholes and abuses...

mom: I am going to call the person I deal with for mtges at Chase tomorrow to see if I can get you someone at Chase who can help you. If you have an email address that doesn't out you, post it and I'll send you my RE lawyer's name. He is very responsive by email and will tell you right off the bat what he charges for this kind of work.

When I went off to a faraway state for college, my NYC "home" continued to be my residence.

A person I knew, who hadn't lived in Illinois for years, continued to claim an address there as his primary residence for tax purposes, not higher-tax NYS.

I find it very hard to believe that mom, who has had to move out of her coop temporarily for health reasons, can't continue to "reside" there as a primary residence. I suppose subletting messes that up, but mom's daughter is living there, which isn't really a sublet. This can't be very different from an elderly person moving into a nursing home (which is temporary) and retaining primary residence. I think in that case they're even allowed to rent it out for a reasonable period of time.

I'd consult another attorney to see if you really lose primary just because you sojourn elsewhere for medical reasons. Second opinion, as they say.

bugelrex, this is a matter of navigating poorly-planned aspects of the safety-net system, while your example is outright scamming the system. It's not comparable.

Mom: my mtge person at Chase gave me this number 1-800-848-9136. If this does not work for you, let me know ASAP and I will get you another number.

bump

Many thanks, nyc10023-- I will call today.

ps--I'm also 10023!