## Facts

- In March 2000, Albert Godown and his wife transferred their residence and related commercial property to their children for $1.
- The property comprised roughly 10 acres with a main residence and a commercial greenhouse with an apartment; its fair market value was about $500,000 at the time of transfer.
- At the time of transfer, Godown was about 77 years old, used a walker, and used a motorized cart on the property.
- Godown’s wife had serious health problems, including legal blindness (declared in 1999), diabetes, peripheral neuropathy, and heart disease.
- After the transfer, the Godowns lived in an apartment on the property while the children lived in the main residence.
- In July 2001, Godown suffered a stroke and required nursing-home care; his wife could not care for him.
- In August 2001, Godown applied for Medical Assistance (MA) to pay for nursing-home care.
- The County Assistance Office learned of the March 2000 transfer, offered the children an opportunity to transfer the property back, and the children declined (citing a $100,000 mortgage they had obtained).
- MA was denied on the ground that Godown had made a disqualifying transfer of resources for less than fair consideration within the look-back period.
- After an administrative hearing, a hearing officer found Godown ineligible; the Department of Public Welfare affirmed, and Godown sought judicial review.

## Issues

1. Whether DPW erred in concluding that the transfer of a $500,000 property for $1 was made to qualify for MA, triggering ineligibility under MA transfer-of-assets rules.
2. Whether Godown rebutted the regulatory presumption that a transfer for less than fair consideration within the look-back period was made to establish MA eligibility.

## Decision

- The Commonwealth Court affirmed DPW’s final order denying MA eligibility.
- The court held that the transfer for nominal consideration within the look-back period properly triggered a presumption that the transfer was made to obtain MA.
- The court held that Godown failed to rebut the presumption with credible evidence that the transfer was exclusively for another purpose.
- The court deferred to the agency fact-finder and concluded that substantial evidence supported DPW’s determination.

## Legal Principles

- A transfer of assets for less than fair consideration within the MA look-back period gives rise to a presumption that the transfer was made to establish MA eligibility.
- Once the presumption applies, the applicant bears the burden to prove, with credible evidence, that the transfer was exclusively for a purpose other than qualifying for MA.
- On appellate review of an administrative MA determination, the court does not reweigh evidence and will uphold the agency’s decision where supported by substantial evidence.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed the denial of nursing-home MA benefits because Godown’s transfer of a high-value property to his children for $1 within the look-back period triggered a presumption of MA-eligibility planning, and the evidence offered did not establish an exclusive non-MA purpose sufficient to overcome that presumption.


Godown v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 813 A.2d 954 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002)