23

THE EVERETT ADVOCATE – FRiDAy, OCTObER 9, 2026 Page 23 BEACON | FROM PAGE 22 small slice of insiders; incentivizes offi cials to deliver; and is familiar to them already — it’s how we vote in mayoral and municipal elections across the commonwealth. Massachusetts is ready for a democracy that inspires action from our elected leaders to solve the numerous problems we’re facing — on aff ordability, health care, housing and too many more. “Yes” on Question 3 has a strong, broad coalition of voting rights, civil rights, grassroots, labor, climate and civic groups, along with former and current offi cials, and is growing every week. With majority support across demographics, we’re building real momentum toward November.” WHAT OPPONENTS TOLD BEACON HILL ROLL CALL “Private equity executives are trying to buy a more favorable election system and making promises they never intend to keep, and once they rig the system in their favor, it becomes nearly impossible to undo,” Berg Powers, chair of Voter Rights MA told Beacon Hill Roll Call. “The overwhelming majority of this campaign’s funding comes from obscenely wealthy individuals, which is why this isn’t a grassroots movement. It’s a hedge fund with a ballot question. Independent voters are not shut out of party primaries today, because unenrolled voters can already choose either party’s ballot without joining a party.” Berg continued, “And Question 3 doesn’t fi x the real competition problem in Massachusetts, where people don’t run for offi ce because of time and money, since it makes campaigns longer and more expensive. Unions, community groups and everyday activists from across the political spectrum have come together to urge a No vote on 3, and as voters learn what’s at stake, they’ll join the people and groups they trust most.” OFFICIAL ARGUMENTS: Here are the official arguments, gathered by the secretary of state, from both sides of the question. Each side was allowed to submit up to a 150word statement supporting their position. IN FAVOR: “Massachusetts elected officials should work for us, not insiders. But for years insiders have held the advantage. Many elections are over before most of us ever cast a ballot. Candidates can be blocked at party conventions. Today, two-thirds of the legislature is running unopposed. They can take voters for grantCity of Everett Conservation Commission Everett City Hall, Room 40 484 Broadway Robert Van Campen, Mayor Everett, MA 02149 LEGAL NOTICE The Everett Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on Thursday, October 22, 2026, at 7 PM pursuant to the Wetlands Protection Act, M.G.L. 131 c40. The hearing will include consideration of a Request for Determination of Applicability by Alyssa Jacobs of Elipson Associates representing the Massachusetts Department of Transportation for the advancement of geotechnical borings associated with the proposed Mystic River Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge. Said hearing will be held in the George Keverian Meeting Room, City Hall, 484 Broadway, Everett, MA 02149. To view application and related plans, contact the Conservation Agent Tom Philbin 617-309-8038. Eamon Kernan Chairman Everett Conservation Commission October 09, 2026 Eamon Kernan Chairman Phone: 617-394-5004 ed and ignore important issues like aff ordable housing, energy costs, better schools and the audit 72% of us demanded. All-party primaries will bring accountability and transparency to Massachusetts politics by making elections more competitive, forcing politicians to listen. All candidates appear on your primary ballot, and the top two advance to November where they need a majority of votes to win. Insiders have less control and we get fresh voices running for offi ce. More competition means more accountability. Legislators who know voters can replace them. Listen to us and deliver real results. Vote Yes on Question 3 for accountability and competition.” AGAINST: “Similar top two systems in California and Washington have favored wealthy, self-funded candidates who can out-advertise crowded fi elds and the corporate PACs seeking to purchase offi ces, while sidelining grassroots candidates and historically marginalized and underrepresented groups such as candidates of color and women. Third-party and independent BEACON | SEE PAGE 24 Daley And Nadeau Supreme Court Cases O n May 30, 2017, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) handed down a pretty big blow to MassHealth by ruling in favor of the appellants. The SJC decided to hear the Daley case and the Nadeau case at the same time as the issues in both cases were so intricately related. This favorable decision was due to the endless work by members of the Massachusetts Chapter of the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys as well as assistance from the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys and the Massachusetts Real Estate Bar Association. The Daley case involved the transfer of a remainder interest in real estate into an irrevocable trust with a retained life estate in the deed itself on the part of the applicant. The Nadeau case involved simply a transfer of the entire fee simple interest in real estate into an irrevocable trust without a retention of a life estate in the deed itself on the part of the applicant. The court held in both cases that the real estate housed in each of the irrevocable trusts was not a countable asset and reversed the prior judgments that were in favor of MassHealth. As a result, the applicants become eligible for MassHealth benefi ts. In other words, these trust provisions have passed muster insofar as the highest court in the land is concerned. MassHealth had presented what virtually every elder law attorney believed to have been an outrageous argument by claiming that the Health Care Financing Agency (HCFA) Transmittal 64 in eff ect contained language that should lead to the conclusion that a right to use, occupy and possess real estate held in an irrevocable Trust was a “payment” to a MassHealth applicant/nursing home resident. The SJC rebuked MassHealth’s argument unequivocally. In a nutshell, the SJC stated a use and occupancy right does not rise to the level of a Trustee being able to sell the underlying real estate and use the net sales proceeds therefrom to pay for nursing home care. I always insert a use and occupancy right in irrevocable Trusts that I draft. Another reason to include such a provision is to obtain the real estate exemption that several cities and towns in Massachusetts provide to homeowners. The homeowner must also be either the Trustee of the irrevocable Trust in order to maintain legal title, or if a child is the Trustee, the homeowner must then reserve a life estate in the deed that transfers the home into the irrevocable Trust. The SJC also indicated that a reserved life estate in and of itself does not render the underlying real estate a “countable” asset for MassHealth eligibility purposes. It went on to say, regarding the Daley Trust, that the remainder interest that was transferred into the irrevocable Trust itself was not a “countable” asset as well. It was great news at that time for elderly applicants who had placed their home in an irrevocable Trust that included a provision for use and occupancy. The SJC could have gone a lot further in this case in setting MassHealth straight on many other issues pertaining to irrevocable Trusts. However, subsequent court cases, such as the Fournier Mass Supreme Judicial Court case, helped greatly to prevent MassHealth from taking legal positions with virtually no statutory or case law support. MassHealth at least has to think twice before making an unreasonable and legally-flawed argument in an attempt to attack an otherwise properly drafted irrevocable Trust. It simply lost too many very important court cases and at least for now, decided to change its policy. The Massachusetts elder bar is continually voraciously advocating on behalf of the elderly community. 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.

24 Publizr Home