Court Opinion

ID: 9663428
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:38:51.058062+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:49.413677
License: Public Domain

GIERKE, Justice.
This is an appeal from a district court judgment reversing a decision of the Department of Human Services (the Department) to terminate Evelyn Olson’s medical assistance benefits. We affirm.
Evelyn began receiving medical assistance benefits from the Department on March 1, 1983. Subsequently, Evelyn’s daughter, Carol Nielsen, was appointed conservator to handle Evelyn’s affairs. When Evelyn’s mother, Ida Carlson, died, Evelyn was to inherit property by intestate succession, with an estimated value of $23,-000, from Ida’s estate. However, Evelyn, through her conservator, renounced the interest in Ida’s estate. The Department determined that Evelyn’s interest in Ida’s estate prior to the renunciation constituted an inchoate property right which it deemed to be an available resource to Evelyn disqualifying her under Section 50-24.1-02, N.D. C.C., from receiving further medical benefits. When Evelyn renounced her interest in the estate, the Department determined that the renunciation constituted a transfer of property under Section 50-24.1-02(1), N.D.C.C., which also disqualified Evelyn from receiving further medical assistance benefits.
Evelyn requested and received an administrative hearing whereupon the termination of her medical assistance benefits was affirmed by the Department. Evelyn appealed to the district court which reversed the Department’s decision on the ground that Evelyn’s interest in Ida’s es*159tate did not constitute a disqualifying resource and that the renunciation did not constitute a disqualifying transfer.
Prior to renouncing the inheritance on Evelyn’s behalf, Carol moved for and obtained a court order approving the renunciation. See Section 30.1-29-01, N.D.C.C. The Department concedes that it had actual notice of the hearing on Carol’s motion and that it did not make an appearance to object to the renunciation. See Section 30.1-29-05, N.D.C.C.
The Department does not dispute either the probate court’s approval or the validity of the renunciation. The issue of whether the probate court should have approved the renunciation is therefore not before us on this appeal, nor is the issue of a conflict of interest regarding Carol’s dual status as conservator for Evelyn and as potential beneficiary of the renounced inheritance.
The dispositive issue on appeal in this case is whether Evelyn’s interest in Ida’s estate constituted a resource or the renunciation of the interest constituted a transfer disqualifying her from receiving further medical assistance benefits.
When a district court decision involving a review of an administrative agency is appealed to this court, we review the decision of the agency and look to the record compiled before it. Schultz v. North Dakota Department of Human Services, 372 N.W.2d 888 (N.D.1985). Resolution of the issue before us involves the interpretation and application of a statutory provision which is a question of law fully reviewable by this court.
Subsections (1) and (3) of Section 30.1-10-01, N.D.C.C., provide in relevant part:
“1. [T]he representative of an incapacitated or protected person, who is an heir, ... may renounce, in whole or in part, the right of succession to any property or interest therein, ... by filing a written renunciation under this section.
* * * * * *
“3. Unless the decedent or donee of the power has provided otherwise, the property or interest renounced de- • volves as though the person renouncing predeceased the decedent.... A renunciation relates back for all purposes to the date of the death of the decedent or the donee of the power.”
The foregoing provisions unambiguously provide that the effect of a renunciation is to treat the interest as though it never passed to the renouncing party, because that party is deemed to have predeceased the decedent from whom the interest would have been received. The provisions further unambiguously provide that “for all purposes” the renunciation relates back to the date of the decedent’s death. The Department’s view that Evelyn’s interest in Ida’s estate should be treated as an available resource or that her renunciation of it should be treated as a disqualifying transfer is inconsistent with the requirement that a renunciation relate back to the date of the death of the decedent “for all purposes.”
Absent an express statutory provision to the contrary, a renunciation is not treated as a fraudulent transfer of assets, and the renouncer’s creditors cannot on that ground claim any rights to the renounced property. See In the Matter of the Estate of Colacci, 37 Colo.App. 369, 549 P.2d 1096 (1976); Coomes v. Finegan, 233 Ia. 448, 7 N.W.2d 729 (1943). The motive underlying the renunciation is not relevant to the right to renounce. Estate of Oot, 95 Misc.2d 702, 408 N.Y.S.2d 303 (1978). Regarding the effect of a renunciation, the Comment to Uniform Probate Code (U.L.A.) § 2-801(d) states in relevant part:
“Rights of Creditors and Others: As regards creditors, taxing authorities and others, the provision for ‘relation back’ has the legal effect of preventing a succession from becoming operative in favor . of the disclaimant. The relation back is ‘for all purposes’ which would include, among others for the purpose of rights *160of creditors, taxing authorities and assertion of dower.”
We are unpersuaded that there is a valid distinction upon which to allow the Department to benefit by treating a renunciation as a transfer although the reno'uncer’s creditors and the tax department cannot.
Section 30.1-10-01, N.D.C.C., provides for no exceptions to treating a renunciation as relating back to the date of the death of decedent. However, under Section 30.1~10-01(4)(a)(2), N.D.C.C., the legislature has provided that the right to renounce may be barred by written waiver. The Department does not assert that such a waiver was obtained by it from Evelyn as a prerequisite to receiving medical assistance benefits, and it cannot now attempt to secure a de facto waiver by treating Evelyn’s renounced interest or the renunciation, itself, as disqualifying her from receiving benefits.
We do not believe that the result we reach today by our interpretation of the effect of renunciation under Section 30.1-10-01, N.D.C.C., conflicts with the legislative intent regarding eligibility requirements for medical assistance benefits under Section 50-24.1-02, N.D.C.C. Under that eligibility provision no person can receive medical benefits who has made an “assignment or transfer” of property for the purpose of becoming eligible to receivp benefits. The legislature did not expressly make “renunciation” a disqualifying act, although it could have easily so provided; nor did it define the terms “assignment” or “transfer.” However, as commonly understood, those terms connote an act of designating or conveying a thing from one person to another. One who assigns or transfers a property designates the assignee or transferee and the terms of the conveyance. In contrast, one who renounces a bequest or inheritance under Section 30.1-10-01, N.D.C.C., cannot designate the recipient or otherwise control the disposition of the renounced property.
By refusing to allow the Department to treat a renunciation under Section 30.1-10.-01, N.D.C.C., as a disqualifying act under Section 50-24.1-02, N.D.C.C., we are aware that the potential exists for individuals to refuse an inheritance or bequest which, absent the refusal, would be available to pay the costs of medical care for the renouncing party otherwise paid for by the Department. However, the legislature has provided an adequate tool to prevent such a result in authorizing that one’s renunciation rights may be barred by written waiver. In view of this simple and adequate remedy we are unwilling, through judicial interpretation, to erode or infringe upon the clear legislative expression that a renouncing party is deemed to have predeceased the decedent and the renunciation made effective back to the date of the decedents death for all purposes.
In accordance with this opinion, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
MESCHKE and LEVINE, JJ„ concur.