THE REVERE ADVOCATE – FRIDAY, AUGUST 29, 2025 Page 19 Classes of 1965 and 1966 Reunions Oct. 12 T he High School Class Reunion for the classes from Revere High School and Immaculate Conception High School 1965 and 1966 are in the works. They are joining together to celebrate their Class Reunions. The event will be held at the Casa Lucia Function Hall, Lucia Avenue, Revere, Mass., on Sunday, October 12, 2025, at 4:00 p.m. The cost for the evening is $85.00. If you use VENMO, the cost is $88.00 per person. Reservations are required. MASS HOUSE | FROM Page 13 advances through the legislative process in a timely manner, so that these individuals may receive the retirement benefi ts they have rightfully earned through years of service.” “Many thanks to the Speaker, the Chairs and all my colleagues for supporting this very important legislation,” said Representative Rob Consalvo (D-Boston), a sponsor of the bill. “Our action will support hundreds of educators from my District, and all across the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, by correcting this inequity once and for all.” The change that this bill makes applies to teachers who are vested in the Massachusetts Teachers’ Retirement System, or in the Boston Retirement System, and are subsequently employed by EOE or DESE. Employees of EOE or DESE who are members of the state employees’ retirement system, and who are reinstated in the Teachers’ Retirement System or the Boston Retirement System because of the passage of this bill, would not be deemed to have had an interruption of membership or We plan an evening of memories, renewal of acquaintances (and whatever) and lots of fun. For further information and/or if you wish to assist in our eff orts, contact us at rhsclassof65@yahoo.com. We want to catch up on your lives and keep in touch with you. Hope you can make it. We are searching for classmates from Revere High School and Immaculate Conception Classes graduating in 1965 and 1966. Your Reunion Committee service. Upon reinstatement, the member must pay into the annuity savings fund of the Teachers’ Retirement System or the Boston Retirement System. The bill also mandates that a reinstated member be entered into the state employees’ retirement system as a Group 1 state employee upon retirement. The bill passed today also establishes a new one-time opportunity to elect to participate in the alternative superannuation retirement benefi t program for active or inactive members of the Teachers’ Retirement System who: are a teacher or school nurse; became eligible for membership before July 1, 2001; began contributing to the Teachers’ Retirement System before July 1, 2001; and did not provide a written election to participate or held a good faith belief that they elected to participate in the alternative superannuation retirement benefi t program to the Teachers’ Retirement System before July 1, 2001 nor at any other time prior to September 1, 2025. Having passed the House of Representatives 158-0 the bill now goes to the Senate for its consideration. 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 benefi ts, 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 benefi t 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 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. 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 Master’s Degree in Taxation. REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS BUYER1 Perez, Sebastian B BUYER2 Uribe, Manuela V SELLER1 Beatrice, Henry J SELLER2 Beatrice, Lita J ADDRESS 34 Graves Rd Revere Copyrighted material previously published in Banker & Tradesman/The Commercial Record, a weekly trade newspaper. It is reprinted with permission from the publisher, The Warren Group. For a searchable database of real estate transactions and property information visit: www.thewarrengroup.com DATE PRICE 08.06.25 720000
20 Publizr Home