Your state's pack. New issues arrive periodically on Mondays. Bookmark it. I built this for the Montana T&E solo who knows Title 72 cold but still loses an afternoon a week tracking the moving Medicaid pieces — especially the expanded-recovery exposure that follows TOD deeds and joint tenancy.
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 Montana 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 § 53-6-167, MCA, DPHHS may present a claim against property the recipient transferred by distribution or survival — reaching TOD deeds, joint tenancy and POD accounts — without opening probate.
This is the structural fact a Montana Medicaid plan is built around. A bare TOD deed (§ 72-6-415) does not defeat recovery; only an irrevocable structure or completed transfer outside the look-back does.
Mont. Code Ann. § 53-6-167 · archive.legmt.gov
Montana adopted the Uniform Real Property Transfer on Death Act; the optional statutory form is at § 72-6-415, MCA, and must be recorded before death.
Useful for avoiding probate, but the asset stays countable for eligibility and reachable for recovery. Flag the gap so the client does not mistake one for the other.
Mont. Code Ann. § 72-6-415 · mca.legmt.gov
Maximum CSRA is $162,660 (minimum $32,532); Montana applies the $752,000 home-equity limit (not the higher tier).
Two places this lands: community-spouse protection math and high-value-home clients. Flag the OBBBA flat $1,000,000 cap (eff. Jan 1, 2028) now.
42 U.S.C. § 1396p · CMS 2026 Standards (medicaid.gov)
Decisions that bind a Montana practitioner — the Montana Supreme Court (Montana has no intermediate appellate court, so probate appeals go straight to the high court), the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, and the Ninth 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.
Corbin Damjanovich died unmarried with two adult children. His family produced a signed, handwritten 2015 page: “I…being of sound mind…would like…my sister Tracy Barlow to be the executor of my estate…over[see] the disbursement of funds…up to her [discretion] how to and when to [divide] and [disburse] cash and or assets.” Everyone stipulated the handwriting and signature were Corbin’s and that he had capacity and was not unduly influenced. The District Court admitted the page as a holographic will, read it to create a “power of appointment” in the sister, and made her personal representative. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The page is a valid holographic will — but, under § 72-1-103(59), MCA, only for the limited purpose of appointing a personal representative. It did not create a trust: the “I would like it to be up to her discretion” language is precatory, not mandatory, imposes no enforceable duties, and names no definite beneficiary, so it fails the clear-and-convincing standard of § 72-38-402, MCA. And it did not create a power of appointment under Montana’s Uniform Powers of Appointment Act (Title 72, ch. 7): because the Legislature codified that area in 2015, courts apply the statute’s explicit elements, not common-law flexibility — and § 72-7-201, MCA, requires a valid instrument that transfers the appointive property and names at least one ascertainable permissible appointee. The page transferred nothing (naming an executor to “disburse” is not a transfer of ownership) and identified no one to receive the assets. With neither trust nor power, the estate was undisposed and passed by intestacy to the two children by representation.
Three things to carry into your files. One: in Montana, “executor to oversee disbursement at her discretion” is administrative language, not a gift — if a client wants someone to decide who takes and how much, the instrument must either make a completed gift, create a trust with a named or ascertainable beneficiary class and enforceable duties, or grant a power of appointment that in terms transfers the appointive property and names permissible appointees. Precatory “I would like” wishes do none of that. Two: a holographic or homemade will that “just names an executor” can be perfectly valid and still distribute nothing — review every DIY instrument for an operative dispositive clause, because a defect there routes the whole estate to the intestacy table regardless of what the decedent plainly wanted. Three: post-2015, Montana powers of appointment live entirely in the MUPAA — cite the statutory elements (instrument, transfer of appointive property, ascertainable permissible appointee) rather than older common-law power cases, and do not expect extrinsic testimony about the decedent’s “trust-type fund” intent to supply terms the writing omits. The drafting fix is cheap; the litigation that follows the omission is not.
Estate of Damjanovich, 2025 MT 259, No. DA 25-0341 (Mont. Nov. 12, 2025) (published) · official opinion — mt.gov
This week in Montana for the T&E solo with Medicaid-planning clients: what the State Bar of Montana, DPHHS Senior & Long Term Care, and CMS put in front of you.
The State Bar CLE calendar, the DPHHS bulletins, and the federal standards all publish on different schedules. This is that sift, already done, with the link on each item.