Your state's pack. New issues arrive periodically on Mondays. Bookmark it. I built this for the Michigan T&E solo who knows EPIC cold but still loses an afternoon a week tracking the moving Medicaid 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 Michigan 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.
Under MCL 400.112g, MDHHS recovers only from assets that pass through probate — Michigan has not adopted expanded recovery.
This is why the Lady Bird deed is the workhorse of Michigan Medicaid planning: it moves the home out of probate at death, so it sits outside MDHHS's reach — without a divestment penalty during life.
MCL 400.112g · legislature.mi.gov; michigan.gov/mdhhs
Michigan has no transfer-on-death deed statute. Instead it recognizes the enhanced life estate (Lady Bird) deed under Michigan Land Title Standard 9.3, which passes the home to a remainder beneficiary at death outside probate.
Use the Lady Bird deed precisely — the grantor retains full lifetime control, the transfer is not a divestment, and the home keeps its Medicaid homestead exemption while bypassing estate recovery.
Mich. Land Title Standard 9.3 · michbar.org
Maximum CSRA is $162,660 (minimum $32,532); Michigan applies the standard $752,000 home-equity limit (not the higher tier).
Two places this lands: community-spouse protection math and high-value-home clients. Flag the 2028 H.R. 1 flat $1,000,000 home-equity cap now.
42 U.S.C. § 1396p · CMS 2026 Standards (medicaid.gov)
Decisions that bind a Michigan practitioner — the Michigan Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern and Western Districts of Michigan, and the Sixth 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.
Charla Brown came home from a nursing facility in 2019 and was cared for by her husband, daughter, and a family friend, who were paid under oral arrangements (about $56,000 over two years). When she later applied for Medicaid Long-Term-Care benefits, DHHS imposed a divestment penalty, treating those caregiver payments as transfers for less than fair market value because they did not satisfy the personal-care-contract policy in the Bridges Eligibility Manual (BEM 405) — which requires a notarized written contract executed before services begin and a physician’s written recommendation before services begin. The estate conceded the contracts did not meet those formalities but argued the policy was unlawful because it made the divestment presumption irrebuttable. The Court of Appeals (for publication) agreed in part. Federal Medicaid law (42 U.S.C. § 1396p(c)(2)(C)(ii)) bars a state from imposing a divestment penalty without considering an applicant’s evidence that assets were transferred exclusively for a purpose other than to qualify for Medicaid, and the SSI methodology states Medicaid must use (20 C.F.R. 416.1246) makes the less-than-fair-market-value presumption rebuttable by convincing evidence — with no personal-care-contract formalities at all. Because BEM 405’s contract requirements created an irrebuttable presumption of divestment whenever a notarized, pre-service contract was missing, they are inconsistent with federal law and must be applied so as not to create that conclusive presumption. The court nonetheless vacated the circuit court’s outright reversal of the penalty and remanded for the ALJ to reevaluate divestment under the proper, rebuttable framework.
Three things to carry into your files. One: in Michigan, a caregiver-agreement defect — no notarized contract signed before care started, no pre-service physician letter — can no longer be treated as conclusive proof of divestment; your client is entitled to put on evidence that the payments were fair-market compensation for real services and were made exclusively for a reason other than Medicaid qualification. Two: that is a rebuttal opportunity, not a safe harbor — the burden is on the applicant and the showing must be “convincing,” so keep papering caregiver agreements to the BEM 405 formalities (notarized, executed before services, with a contemporaneous physician recommendation) because a compliant contract is still the cleanest path and avoids the fight entirely. Three: build the evidentiary record at the time of care — dated payment records, task logs, hours, rates, and a physician’s statement of need — because on remand the ALJ reweighs exactly that proof. The broader point for any state: sub-regulatory Medicaid manual policy must conform to § 1396p and SSI methodology, and an agency manual cannot make conclusive what federal law makes rebuttable.
In re Estate of Charla Brown v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., No. 368825 (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 26, 2026) (for publication) · official opinion — courts.michigan.gov
This week in Michigan for the T&E solo with Medicaid-planning clients: what the State Bar of Michigan Probate & Estate Planning Section, the Legislature, and MDHHS put in front of you.
The SBM CLE calendar, the Probate & Estate Planning Section, and the MDHHS bulletins all publish on different schedules. This is that sift, already done, with the link on each item.