The Florida Estate Planning and Probate Law Blog is focused on recent federal and state case law and planning ideas.


In 2018, Florida voters will have the opportunity to vote on a constitutional amendment to raise the Florida homestead exemption from $50,000 to $75,000, on homes worth $100,000 or more. If 60% of voters approve, the new rate will take effect January 1, 2019. The Florida homestead exemption reduces the value of a Florida residents home for property tax assessment purposes. The proposed amendment would save Florida state residents about $644 million with the average homeowner receiving an annual savings of $170. Florida municipalities and counties are concerned about the decreased revenues impact on critical services (fire department, library, police, etc...).


The IRS has issued Revenue Procedure 2017-37 which contains the annual inflation-adjusted contribution, deductible and out-of-pocket expense limits for health savings accounts (HSAs) in 2018. Annual contribution limitations, deductibles and out of pocket expenses for 2018 increased in all categories from 2017: Limitation on deductions for an individual with self-only coverage under a High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP) to $3,450 Limitation on deductions for an individual with family coverage under an HDHP to $6,900 Annual deductible for self-only coverage that is not less than $1,350 Annual deductible for family coverage that is not less than $2,700 Annual out-of-pocket expenses (deductibles, co-payments, and other amounts, but not premiums) for self-only coverage - do not exceed $6,650 Annual out-of-pocket expenses (deductibles, co-payments, and other amounts, but not premiums) for family coverage - do not exceed $13,300


In an effort to help protect the elderly U.S. population the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has announced that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has approved a new rule and an amendment that are specific to customers who are elders. Regulatory Notice 17-11 explains the new rule and amendment: (1) the adoption of new FINRA Rule 2165 (Financial Exploitation of Specified Adults) to permit members to place temporary holds on disbursements of funds or securities from the accounts of specified customers where there is a reasonable belief of financial exploitation of these customers; and (2) amendments to FINRA Rule 4512 (Customer Account Information) to require members to make reasonable efforts to obtain the name of and contact information for a trusted contact person for a customer’s account. Both New Rule 2165 and the amendments to Rule 4512 become effective February 5, 2018. The new rule and amendment are designed to enable financial specialists to be able to more quickly and effectively address suspected financial exploitation of seniors and other specified adults.


Many individuals in our aging population are transitioning from home ownership to life in an assisted living facility (“ALF”). Many ALF’s require a onetime entry fee and ongoing monthly charges for housing and services (meal plans, housekeeping, transportation, and social and recreational activities). The benefit of an ALF is that when a resident’s health and personal care needs become more acute, they are not forced to move to a new facility, as their level of service can be increased to include long-term care and skilled nursing care. Although the costs of an ALF can be substantial, a percentage or all of the costs can be deducted as a medical expense income tax deduction either by the individual or third party if they are providing more than half of the resident’s support. Section 213(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) allows as a deduction any expenses that are paid during the taxable year for the medical care of the taxpayer, his or her spouse, and dependents who are not compensated by insurance or otherwise. Estate of Smith v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 313, 318 (1982). The deduction is allowed only to the extent the amount exceeds seven and one-half (7.5%) percent of adjusted gross income. Sec. 213(a); sec. 1.213-1(a)(3), Income Tax Regs. For purposes of Sec. 213 the term “medical care” includes amounts paid “for the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease, or for the purpose of affecting any structure or function of the body.” The entire ALF cost, including room and board, can be fully deducted on a federal income tax return as a medical expense if the individual’s health problems are classified as being “chronically ill” and if the appropriate services are “provided pursuant to a plan of care prescribed by a licensed health care practitioner” (physician, registered professional nurse or licensed social worker). An individual will qualify as “chronically ill” if a licensed health care practitioner certifies that the individual: (i) is unable to perform at least two (2) basic activities of daily living (including eating, toileting, transferring, bathing, dressing) without assistance from another individual due to loss of functional capacity for at least ninety (90) days; or (ii) requires substantial supervision to be protected from threats to health and safety due to severe cognitive impairment.


In Gallardo v. Dudek (N.D. Fla., No. 4:16-cv-116-MW/CAS, April 18, 2017), a federal district court ruled that federal law prohibits the state of Florida from seeking reimbursement for Medicaid payments it made on a recipient’s behalf from portions of the recipient’s personal injury settlement that were allocated to future medical expenses. Florida’s reimbursement statute uses a uniform formula in which the recipient’s gross settlement is first reduced by twenty (25%) percent to account for attorney fees, the remainder is divided in half (1/2), and the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), Florida’s Medicaid agency, is then entitled to recover the lesser of its total medical payments or one half (1/2). Under this formula, AHCA would recover $323,508.29 in medical payments from Gianinna's settlement. Gianinna’s parents filed suit against the agency in federal court seeking an injunction and a declaration that Florida’s reimbursement statute violates federal law inasmuch as it allows the state to recover from the portion of her settlement beyond that allocable to past medical expenses. AHCA countered that it was entitled to satisfy its lien from the portion of the settlement representing compensation for both past and future medical expenses. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. The U.S. District Court, N.D. Florida, granted the Gallardos’ motion for summary judgment and denied AHCA’s motion. The court held, consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Ahlborn (547 U.S. 268 (2006)), that the AHCA is entitled to recover for past medical payments it made on Gianinna’s behalf only from that portion of the settlement allocated to past medical expenses. The court held that where the state reimbursement law explicitly allows for recovery from the portion of the settlement attributable to future medical care, that portion of the state law violates, and is preempted by, federal Medicaid law.