Court Opinion

ID: 9739065
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:08:03.960935+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:09.800732
License: Public Domain

KALITOWSKI, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I would affirm the trial court on the basis that the county’s claim against the estate of Rose Edh-lund is not a retroactive application of law where the statutory amendment allowing the claim was enacted more than nine months prior to Rose Edhlund’s death.
Under both the prior version of the statute (as interpreted in In re Estate of Messerschmidt, 352 N.W.2d 774 (Minn.Ct.App.1984)) and under the amended law, the county had no claim for Arthur Edhlund’s medical assistance at the time of Arthur’s death, where all of Arthur’s property was held in joint tenancy with Rose. Thus the event which the legislature affected by amending the law was the distribution of Rose Edhlund’s estate. Since Rose’s death and the creation of her estate occurred subsequent to the change in the law there is no retroactive application.
The county concedes that its claim depends on events which occurred prior to the statutory change (i.e. the payment of medical assistance and Arthur’s death). However, these events merely define the claim against Rose Edhlund’s estate, and “a statute is not retroactive merely because it relates to antecedent facts for its operation.” In re Estate of O’Keefe, 354 N.W.2d 531, 535 (Minn.Ct.App.1984) (citations omitted), ■pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Jan. 4, 1985).
Additionally, the presumption against - retroactive application derives from a presumed unfairness to a person deprived of the ability to alter circumstances and avoid application of a law. In the present case, it can hardly be said the amended law is unfair to Rose where the county’s claim for repayment cannot be made until after Rose’s death. Also, where the heirs of Rose Edhlund had a mere expectancy rather than a vested right in her estate there is no unfairness. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that Arthur or Rose had either the inclination or the ability to arrange things differently to avoid having to repay the county for Arthur’s medical assistance after Rose’s death.
Finally, there are strong policy reasons for allowing medical assistance payments to be recovered from the estates of recipients. Estate collection statutes serve a very important purpose in allowing recovery of money paid to qualified individuals so that other similarly situated persons may be helped. In Re Estate of Turner, 391 N.W.2d 767, 770 (Minn.1986).