Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

There is an attorney talk show host on KGO radio named Len Tillum; he specialized in such matters. You can go to his radio web site or call his program, 12-1 seekday, 4-7 Sundays.

Not knowing what the form says, I can not state what the effect is. However, a property held in joint tenancy immediately goes to the other joint tenants upon death, so it is not in his estate and is not an asset of the estate.

Welfare & Institutions Code section 14009.5 is the main piece of law here. It, in concert with preceding and following sections of the W&I Code, attempt to describe and direct efforts by Medi-Cal to get reimbursement of benefits from the estate of a deceased beneficiary.

A former version of W&I 14009.5 was declared unconstitutional and inconsistent with 42 U.S.C.A. � 1396p, in in a Federal case called Citizens Action League v. Kizer, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1989, 887 F.2d 1003, certiorari denied 110 S.Ct. 1524, 494 U.S. 1056, 108 L.Ed.2d 764, precisely because it directed attempts to collect from a surviving former joint tenant of a deceased beneficiary. The W&I Code was then amended to remove the offending language.

However, USCA 1396p has been amended time and again, most recently effective 1/1/2010, and now contains the following provision:

(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term �estate�, with respect to a deceased individual--

(A) shall include all real and personal property and other assets included within the individual's estate, as defined for purposes of State probate law; and

(B) may include, at the option of the State (and shall include, in the case of an individual to whom paragraph (1)(C)(i) applies), any other real and personal property and other assets in which the individual had any legal title or interest at the time of death (to the extent of such interest), including such assets conveyed to a survivor, heir, or assign of the deceased individual through joint tenancy, tenancy in common, survivorship, life estate, living trust, or other arrangement.

I do not know the date on which the above-quoted language first appeared in the Federal law, but its presence seems to allow California to seek reimbursement from the surviving joint tenant.

Careful research would be required to give you a reliable answer, unless some lawyer has already researched the history and current status of both the Federal law and state law and policy as it stands post-amendment(s). It seems clear, however, that the "government," broadly defined, is working to close what it apparently considers a "loophole."

There is a 1999 Minnesota case, "In re Estate of Jobe, 590 N.W.2d 162 (Minn.App. Mar 23, 1999)" that suggests based on a revision of the Federal law, Minnesota can now go after former joint tenancy property.

Bottom line is that the MediCal notice has to be regarded as very possibly a true statement of the law. You are right, however, that without special statutes a lien on a joint tenant's interest expires with his death.