The MassHealth agency had issued a denial that included trustee compensation as one of the reasons, then the lawyer representing the agency waived the issue; see pages 5 and 22 of the decision. (Does the MassHealth agency really believe it is entitled to enforce its legal positions selectively?)
In this case, the MassHealth agency unsuccessfully argued that the vested beneficiaries of a nominee realty trust could amend the trust to give their ownership rights back to the MassHealth applicant, who had established the trust. Since the MassHealth applicant had a life estate in the trust, and since the trust provided that any beneficiary could terminate the trust, the life estate of the MassHealth applicant was deemed to be a countable asset.
MassHealth’s Superior Court Opposition Brief (This is the Parsons case. Note that the “available” home argument was not made here, despite misrepresentations from the Office of Attorney General in court cases that the agency made that argument.)