THE EVERETT ADVOCATE – FRiDAy, AugusT 29, 2025 Page 15 OBITUARY Roy Templeton The Heyn Mass Appeals Court Case A Massachusetts Appeals Court Judge back in 2016 held against MassHealth with respect to the countability of assets housed in an irrevocable Trust. It is well settled law that for purposes of determining eligibility for MassHealth benefits, countable assets include any portion of the Trust principal that could under any circumstances be paid to or for the benefi t of the applicant. Such circumstances need not have occurred, or even be imminent, in order for the principal to be treated as countable assets; it is enough that the amount could be made available to the applicant under any circumstances. This was set forth in the Heyn case, a Massachusetts Appeals Court case decided in 2016, which reversed the prior Superior Court judgment. In the Superior Court case, the applicant had retained a limited or special power of appointment in the Trust that she created that she could have exercised during her lifetime “to appoint the remaining principal and any undistributed income of the Trust among the members of the class consisting of her issue of all generations or charitable organizations other than governmental entities, but no such power or payment shall be used to discharge a legal obligation of the applicant”. In a simple sense, appoint is another word for distribute and an example of issue would be children or grandchildren. MassHealth argued that if the applicant appointed Trust principal to family members, those family members could then in turn return the Trust principal to the applicant to be used for her benefi t. The Appeals Court in Heyn stated that “Medicaid does not consider assets held by other family members who might, by reason of love, but without legal obligation, voluntarily contribute monies toward the grantor’s support”. The grantor of the Trust is also referred to as the Settlor or Donor, and in this case, was the applicant for MassHealth benefi ts as well. The court also stated that “the limited power of appointment is exercisable only in favor of permissible appointees, and any attempt to exercise a limited power of appointment in favor of an impermissible appointee (i.e. to use principal for the personal benefi t of the grantor), is therefore invalid. An appointment to a permissible appointee is ineff ective to the extent that it was: 1. Conditioned on the appointee conferring a benefi t on the impermissible appointee 2. Subject to a charge in favor of an impermissible appointee 3. Upon a trust for the benefi t of an impermissible appointee 4. In consideration of a benefit conferred upon or promised to an impermissible appointee 5. Primarily for the benefi t of the appointee’s creditor, if that creditor is an impermissible appointee, or 6. Motivated in any other way to be for the benefi t of an impermissible appointee. The above six items are set forth in the Restatement (Third) of Property and the Superior Court judge held that MassHealth cannot argue that Trust principal could ever be distributed to a permissible appointee in order to benefi t the applicant and held that none of the Trust principal was countable. The applicant then qualifi ed for MassHealth benefi ts. In the case at Joseph D. Cataldo is an estate planning/elder law attorney, Certifi ed Public Accountant, Certifi ed Financial Planner, AICPA Personal Financial Specialist and holds a masters degree in taxation. hand, no principal could under any circumstances be appointed to the applicant. The applicant clearly was not a permissible appointee. If she was, her retained right would have been deemed a general power of appointment thereby providing her a right to receive Trust principal. This case is important to keep in mind as the Trustee of an irrevocable Trust would have the right to distribute some or all of the principal to children or grandchildren, for example, thereby allowing access to the assets housed in the Trust by children or grandchildren. The Court in Heyn is stating that this does not rise to the level of allowing principal distributions to the Settlor/Donor of such irrevocable Trust. The children or grandchildren might, for love and aff ection, decide to gift some or all of the assets back to the Settlor/ Donor, but are under no such legal obligation to do so. They might just decide to spend all of the money themselves. O f Everett. Passed away peacefully on W ednesday, August 20, 2025 surrounded by his loving wife of 49 years, Phyllis (Anderson) and many generous caretakers. Roy also leaves his son, Mark, of Apollo, Florida. Roy worked for United Airlines as a Ramp Serviceman, retiring after 40 years of dedicated service. He served and was honorably discharged from the U.S. Navy. Roy was a Life Member and was a Past Exalted Rule of the Saugus-Everett, Lodge of Elks, # 642. Roy was predeceased by his parents, Albert and Agnes (Morley) and his in-laws, Alfred and Marion Anderson and their adult children, Shirley & Joseph Miele; John Anderson; Robert & Jean Anderson; Donald & Edith Anderson; Arthur & Rosemary Anderson; Dorothy & Ernest Dabrieo; Evelyn & Raymond Guelli and Robert Hatch. He is survived by his sisters-inlaw, Marion Hatch and Nancy Anderson as well as many godchildren, nieces and nephews. Relatives and friends were invited to attend Roy’s visiting hour in the Immaculate Conception Church, Everett, on Monday, August 25. Interment with U.S. Navy Military Honors at the Puritan Lawn Memorial Park, Peabody. Donations in Roy’s memory may be made to Immaculate Conception Church, 489 Broadway, Everett, MA; the National Kidney Foundation, Gift Processing, 30 East 33rd St., New York, NY 10016 or to the charity of your choice.
16 Publizr Home