## Facts

- John Pikula executed a will creating a testamentary trust for his daughters, including Marian Pikula; the trust became effective upon his death in 1991.
- The trust authorized the trustee to pay or spend for Marian’s maintenance and support only as the trustee “may deem advisable,” and permitted undistributed income to be added to principal.
- The trust authorized principal distributions in the trustee’s “sole and absolute discretion,” including complete exhaustion, and directed the trustee to consider the beneficiary’s other income or property; the trustee’s discretion was declared conclusive and not subject to challenge.
- The trust’s primary asset was John’s home; after its sale, the trust corpus was reported to be just under $170,000.
- In March 2012, Marian entered a long-term care facility and applied for Medicaid assistance.
- The Department of Social Services denied benefits, treating the trust as an “available asset” that exceeded Medicaid resource limits.
- A DSS hearing officer upheld the denial; the Superior Court dismissed Marian’s administrative appeal.
- Marian appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether the testamentary trust should be treated as an “available asset” for Medicaid eligibility because it functioned as a general support trust.
2. Whether, based on the testator’s intent and the beneficiary’s enforceable rights, the trust instead operated as a supplemental needs trust whose assets were not countable.

## Decision

- The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
- The court held the trust was a supplemental needs trust, not an available asset for Medicaid eligibility.
- The court concluded the agency and trial court erred by characterizing the trust as an available resource.

## Legal Principles

- Construction of a will and testamentary trust is a question of law reviewed de novo; the controlling consideration is the testator’s intent, determined from the instrument as a whole and surrounding circumstances at execution.
- In administrative appeals, an agency’s legal conclusions stand only if they reflect a correct application of law to the facts found and logically follow from those facts.
- For Medicaid eligibility, trust assets are “available” only if the applicant has a legal right, authority, or power to obtain them (including by compelling distributions).
- A general support trust is typically countable because the beneficiary may be able to compel distributions for ordinary support and maintenance.
- A supplemental needs trust is typically not countable where distributions are discretionary and the beneficiary lacks an enforceable right to demand support; language requiring the trustee to consider other resources and granting conclusive discretion supports a supplemental-needs characterization.

## Conclusion

The court determined that the trust’s broad discretionary distribution scheme, requirement to consider other resources, and insulation of trustee decisions from challenge showed the testator intended the trust to supplement rather than replace public benefits; because the beneficiary could not compel distributions, the trust corpus was not an available Medicaid asset.


Pikula v. Department of Social Services, 321 Conn. 259, 138 A.3d 212 (2016)