Your state's pack. New issues arrive periodically on Mondays. Bookmark it. Built for the Texas T&E solo who knows the Estates Code but still loses an afternoon tracking the moving Medicaid pieces — the MERP rule changes, the income cap and Miller-trust plumbing, the homestead exceptions. What's below is what mattered in Texas this week.
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 Texas T&E solo. Each comes with a reachable citation so you can verify it yourself before you use it with a client.
The Texas Health and Human Services Commission filed proposed MERP rule amendments with the Secretary of State, clarifying the program consistent with federal law at 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(b)(1), including a State Plan Amendment to send MERP notices to the decedent's last known address so heirs learn of a possible claim.
For a Texas solo this is a notice-timing change worth watching: heirs will be put on notice of MERP claims at death, which sharpens the value of pre-death planning (homestead exceptions, TOD deeds, exempt-transfer structuring). Review any open estate where a MERP claim is possible and confirm the homestead-exception posture before the rule finalizes.
Tex. Register · sos.state.tx.us/texreg/archive/March202026 · 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(b)(1)
For 2026 the nursing-home Medicaid income cap is $2,982/month for a single applicant; the asset limit is $2,000. A client over the income cap cannot qualify without a Qualified Income Trust (QIT), the Texas Miller Trust, into which excess income is routed each month.
In Texas the QIT is not optional optimization — it is the gate. The malpractice trap is timing: the trust must exist and be funded in the month eligibility is sought, so a client who applies first and plans second loses months of coverage. Build the QIT into the intake the moment income is over cap.
1 Tex. Admin. Code § 358.339 · 2026 figures: hhs.texas.gov
Texas protects the homestead without a dollar cap (Tex. Const. art. XVI, § 50; Tex. Prop. Code § 41.001), and MERP carries a homestead exception. But protection from creditors in life does not equal protection from estate recovery at death if the home passes through probate and no MERP exception applies.
The planning move is keeping the homestead out of probate — a transfer-on-death deed (Tex. Est. Code ch. 114) or a properly structured arrangement — so the constitutional protection carries through to the heirs instead of dropping the home into a probate estate MERP can claim against.
Tex. Const. art. XVI § 50 · Tex. Prop. Code § 41.001 · Tex. Est. Code ch. 114
Decisions that bind a Texas practitioner — the Supreme Court of Texas and the Texas Courts of Appeals, the U.S. District Courts in Texas, and the Fifth 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.
A living trust required the “Front 45” acres of a ranch to be sold “as soon as practicable” after the settlor’s death. The daughter-trustee never sold it across 20 months, instead proposing to carve 12 acres out for her own son and refusing access easements. After she was removed and a successor resigned amid litigation, the district court appointed a receiver to sell the parcel, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The trustee’s duty is to administer “in good faith according to its terms” (Tex. Prop. Code § 113.051), and her plan to peel off acreage for her son was “a clear violation” of the unambiguous trust, so it was “no abuse of discretion to appoint a receiver . . . to do what [she] failed to do.” Critically, the court held § 114.008(a)(5) “does not require a showing that no other adequate remedy exists,” distinguishing the stricter Business Organizations Code standard, and rejected the trustee’s void-order and constitutional-takings arguments.
Two practical points. A trustee who substitutes personal distribution preferences for an unambiguous “shall be sold” directive risks removal and a court-appointed receiver who executes the sale — the terms control, and good-faith administration is measured against them. And for beneficiaries, the trust-code receivership under § 114.008(a)(5) is a lower-bar enforcement tool than business-entity receivership: there is no “inadequate legal remedy” prerequisite, so it can be sought to force compliance short of, or alongside, a surcharge action.
Shelton v. Leuschner, No. 15-25-00072-CV (Tex. App.—15th Dist. Apr. 3, 2026) (mem. op.) · official opinion — txcourts.gov
This week in Texas for the T&E solo with Texas Medicaid (STAR+PLUS) clients: what the State Bar of Texas (REPTL Section) and Texas HHSC put in front of you.
The State Bar of Texas section/CLE feed and the Texas Medicaid feed publish on different schedules. This is that sift, already done, with the link on each item.