Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ramunno v. Delaware Department of Health

Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle

February 28, 2014


Submitted: November 7, 2013

Upon Appeal from the Department of Health and Social Services.


Fred S. Silverman Judge

1. This is an appeal from a penalty imposed by the Department of Health and Social Services on Appellant's long-term Medicaid benefits. Appellant argues against the penalty because cash transferred to her daughter was deferred rent due on an oral lease and was for fair consideration. Here, the court must consider whether the Department properly found Appellant's lease, which the Department found both existed and was for fair rent, did not allow rent deferral.

2. From April 2001 to June 2011, Appellant lived in a furnished three bedroom home owned by her daughter, Ms. Ramunno. Appellant and Ms. Ramunno orally agreed rent would be $1, 000.00 per month, but Appellant actually paid $500.00 per month. There was no written agreement, and the lease's terms, including the unpaid $500.00 per month, are at the case's heart. Appellant alleges the agreement contemplated using her 401k to cover the arrears when the money became available in 2011.

3. In September 2011, as anticipated, Ms. Ramunno cashed Appellant's 401k receiving the full $43, 866.00 net distribution. In October 2011, Appellant applied for long term care Medicaid benefits. Benefits were granted, but with a 206-day penalty imposed because the 401k funds were deemed a transfer without fair consideration. A hearing was held April 16, 2013.

4. The landlords, Mr. and Ms. Ramunno, testified the agreed rent was $1, 000.00 per month, but due to Appellant's limited cash flow, only $500.00 would be paid each month. Appellant would pay the arrears as additional money came available, but no later than when Appellant turned 70 years old and could access her 401k without penalty. Ms. Ramunno asserts the 401k funds were payment of arrears and therefore not a transfer without fair consideration.

5. The Department asserted there was no debt, so the transfer was without fair consideration. The Department also argued if there had been an oral lease as alleged, it was void under the statute of frauds.

6. Appellant suffers from Alzheimer's and could not testify. Her brother, Mr. Biedrzycki, has durable power of attorney and lived with Appellant from 2006 through 2011. Mr. Biedrzycki testified Appellant asked him to pay her half the rent. Initially he paid Appellant $250.00 per month, then $375.00 per month when the rent increased in 2011. He also testified that he believed his portion of the rent was the total he owed.

7. On May 17, 2013, a hearing officer affirmed the Department. First, the officer found the property's fair market value was $1, 700.00 per month. The officer further found there was a month-to-month rental agreement for $1, 000.00, which he defined as an agreement where "all contractual terms must be completed within one month." Accordingly, he concluded the oral rental agreement here could not have a deferred rent provision. The officer also found if a deferred rent provision were legally permissible, it factually did not exist here because there was no consideration for modifying the original $1, 000.00 agreement and "allowing arrears in rent to accumulate for up to ten years." Lastly, the officer held the statute of frauds does not apply here because it is inapplicable to month-to-month leases.

8. Appellant appealed pursuant to 31 Del.C. § 520, alleging three errors. First, as a matter of law, a month-to-month lease does not require all terms be completed within one month. For example, a debt action for arrears is permitted for month-to-month leases within the three year statute of limitations for all breach of contract actions.[1] Therefore, the $500.00 now / $500.00 deferred arrangement was valid. And, at the very least, if the lease was simply for $1, 000.00 per month, as the hearing officer found, Ms. Ramunno can sue for the unpaid rent. Second, if there was an unenforceable agreement, quantum meruit entitles Ms. Ramunno to unpaid rental fees and other expenses accrued during the lease. Lastly, the hearing officer's finding that there was no consideration is contrary to the evidence, because he also found the fair market value was $1, 700.00 per month.

9. Appellee argues Appellant failed to meet her burden. Delaware's Medicaid regulations presume that any asset transferred for less than market value within the 60-month "look back" period establishes a presumption that the transfer's purpose was to make the applicant eligible. Appellant was provided the required notice and opportunity to rebut the presumption, but failed to meet her burden. Further, pursuant to 16 Del. Admin. C. 5100-20350.13, "verbal statements [about Applicant's intentions] are not sufficient evidence." Appellee also asserts Appellant's argument regarding a private debt cause of action under the landlord tenant code does not factor into the Department's penalty determination. Esse ntially, Appellee claims the hearing officer's finding there was no consideration is a fact determination supported by sufficient evidence and should not be disturbed.

10. A hearing officer's decision is subject to judicial review pursuant to 31 Del. C. § 520. The standard of review is whether the decision is free of legal error and supported by substantial evidence.[2] The appeal is on the record and "any factual findings ... that are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole" will be sustained.[3] This court may not remand a case brought to it under 31 Del. C. § 520 for further findings as the statute does not grant that power.[4]

11. The core of this hearing was the 206-day penalty imposed on Appellant. The court recognizes the penalty's important purpose of protecting the state's resources from fraud. Accordingly, the penalty and the burden on Appellant to demonstrate consideration for any transfers vindicate the statute. Implicit in the hearing officer's findings, however, is the notion that were Appellant not living in the house, the Ramunnos could sell or rent it for full market value. Accordingly, the hearing officer tacitly found that this is not a situation where a relative was living in a spare room "paying rent." That leads ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.