Your state's pack. New issues arrive periodically on Mondays. Bookmark it. I built this for the Massachusetts T&E solo who knows the MUPC cold but still loses an afternoon a week tracking the moving MassHealth pieces.
For licensed attorneys. This pack is general legal information and professional commentary for practicing attorneys — it is not legal advice, does not apply to any specific matter, and creates no attorney-client relationship. Verify every authority against the cited primary source before relying on it with a client. Published by Mike Moss, a Utah-admitted attorney, as an AI-enablement information product; it is not an offer of legal services and is not a representation that the author is admitted to practice in your jurisdiction.
Three developments I think actually matter to a Massachusetts T&E solo. Each has a read that lands on your practice specifically — and each comes with a reachable citation so you can verify it yourself before you use it with a client.
The LTC Act (Ch. 197 of the Acts of 2024) cut MassHealth recovery to the federal minimum, effective via EOM 25-09 on May 27, 2025: no recovery on estates under $25,000, expanded hardship waivers, and an end to recovery for CommonHealth and PCA services.
Massachusetts was historically one of the most aggressive recovery states. This is a structural shift — revisit plans built defensively around the old expanded posture; some clients are now over-protected.
Mass. Acts of 2024, c. 197 (LTC Act); MassHealth EOM 25-09 (eff. 5/27/2025) · mass.gov
Ch. 150 of the Acts of 2024 raised the declared Massachusetts homestead under G.L. c. 188 from $500,000 to $1,000,000; the automatic homestead remains $125,000.
The homestead protects against general creditors — but note it does not shield equity from a MassHealth lien or estate recovery. Don't let a client conflate the two protections.
Mass. Acts of 2024, c. 150; G.L. c. 188 · malegislature.gov
Maximum CSRA is $162,660 (minimum $32,532); Massachusetts applies the higher $1,130,000 home-equity limit, not the $752,000 floor.
Two places this lands: community-spouse protection math and high-value-home clients. Flag the 2028 H.R. 1 flat $1,000,000 cap now — it will pull MA's limit down.
42 U.S.C. § 1396p · CMS 2026 Standards (medicaid.gov)
Decisions that bind a Massachusetts practitioner — the Supreme Judicial Court and the Appeals Court, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and the First Circuit — read for what actually changes how you draft, advise, and plan. Trusts and estates broadly, not Medicaid alone: wills and capacity, undue influence, fiduciary duty, trust construction, and estate recovery. One read, the holding, and the official cite.
Montana Jasiul executed a 2015 will, then a 2020 will (drafted by attorney Michael Dwyer, who named himself personal representative) that changed her dispositions and dropped several devisees. A conservator had been appointed in 2019 after Jasiul fell victim to a lottery scam, and the conservatorship decree contemplated a psychiatric evaluation before any new estate plan. After Jasiul died, Dwyer petitioned to probate the 2020 will; objectors filed affidavits alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence, but then moved for summary judgment on a single narrow theory — that the 2020 will was invalid because the conservator did not follow the procedures in the conservatorship statute (G. L. c. 190B, §§ 5-401 et seq.) — and, while that motion was pending, refused discovery on capacity as “irrelevant.” The Probate and Family Court judge nonetheless granted summary judgment on a different ground: that Dwyer had failed to prove testamentary capacity, invalidating the will. The Appeals Court vacated. A court may grant summary judgment on a ground the movant did not raise only if it gives the nonmoving party notice, a chance to submit affidavits, and a right to be heard — none of which Dwyer received. Worse, the judge resolved a disputed fact as a matter of law on an incomplete record while Dwyer’s motion to compel discovery on that very issue sat pending, and failed to view the record in the light most favorable to him. Because testamentary capacity is a question of fact, and the record — Jasiul managing rental properties in three states, collecting rents, and transferring title into late 2020 — raised a genuine issue, summary judgment was improper. Decree of dismissal vacated; remanded.
Three things to carry into your files. One: in a will contest fought on summary judgment, watch the grounds — if the judge signals an intent to decide on a theory the moving party never briefed (capacity, undue influence), you are entitled to notice and an opportunity to submit affidavits and be heard before judgment enters; demand it on the record and, if denied, in a motion for reconsideration with supplemental affidavits, as the proponent did here. Two: testamentary capacity is a fact question that rarely yields to summary judgment; evidence that the testator independently managed finances and property around the time of execution — rents, expenses, a title transfer — will usually create a triable issue, so build that record. Three: a contestant cannot have it both ways — refusing discovery on capacity as “irrelevant” to a narrow legal theory, then taking judgment on capacity — and a pending motion to compel on the dispositive issue must be resolved before the court rules. For the drafter, the through-line is prevention: when a client under conservatorship makes a new will, follow the decree’s evaluation procedures and paper contemporaneous capacity, so the will is not litigated on a thin summary-judgment record years later.
In re Estate of Montana Jasiul, No. 25-P-473 (Mass. App. Ct. Apr. 10, 2026) (published) · official opinion — mass.gov
This week in Massachusetts for the T&E solo with MassHealth-planning clients: what the MBA, MassNAELA, and the MassHealth Eligibility Operations Memos put in front of you.
The MBA CLE calendar, the MassNAELA updates, and the MassHealth EOMs all publish on different schedules. This is that sift, already done, with the link on each item.