Looking to the future is not always bright and clear.
Mr. flower may need a new heart. It will be pricey to say the least. We have medical insurance but …
If it does not pay everything, and it never does, we must pay.
We don’t have much money.
So someone told us we should put the house in my name only. That way when they come to Mr. flower for the money he has only an old car.
But . . .
when you sign all those papers in the hospital you agree to be responsible for the charges, and I think they make the spouse sign it. Don’t they?
Any help will be welcome.
We live in South Carolina.
Thanks
delicate flower
Many hospitals will owrk with you in a situation like that and let you set up a reasonable payment plan. They know they aren’t going to get everything from everyone, and they would rather get a little bit in dribs and drabs than nothing at all.
Plus, doesn’t your insurance have some sort of annual out-of-pocket maximum? I’ve never had a plan that didn’t - it may be a few thousand dollars, but hopefully that’s not enough to leave you homeless.
Sounds like you should check your coverage first and see what the deal is.
Good luck to both of you - even if it doesn’t cost you a penny, a heart transplant is no picnic.
Unless your spouse is unable to sign for himself, you shouldn’t have to sign for anything.
If your insurance company has a contract with the hospital, the agreed amount the hospital will charge for the service will be substantially lower than the actual billed charges. Check with your insurance agent to see what your limits are and what is/isn’t covered.
The hospital I work at (in Georgia) has a number of in-house programs to help people with their bills. Ask the hospital. I’ve seen people with $750,000 bills walk out paying less than $1000. Some walk out paying nothing.
Your hubby may also qualify for Medicaid. Check on this before he goes into the hospital.
The hospital is not going to take your house! If you were in a serious auto accident and are waiting for a settlement, the hospital could put a lien on your share if only to protect their interests (whether or not you have health insurance).
Do some research. The hospital should be willing to help you.
There are two problems here. First, I presume the house is now in both your names. The tranfer to your name alone would almost certainly be considered a fraudulent transfer (or conveyance). That means the hospital, as creditor - or, more likely, a collection agency or other assignee - could have it reversed. Second, as a matter of federal bankruptcy law, making a fraudulent transfer can be a basis for denial of discharge. Doubltess your husband is not presently considering filing for bankruptcy, but you should be aware that this could effectively foreclose it as an option.
Caveats: I am working from general principles, with no specific knowledge of South Carolina law. I do not (and cannot) give you legal advice. I am merely cautioning you that the well-meaning advice you have been given probably is not correct, and could be very dangerous. If you wish to pursue this solution, you’re going to have to consult a lawyer. Yes, that costs money too. Sorry.
I agree. (note slight paraphrase/modification of quote, using standard convention of brackets to indicate same.) I even adopt this disclaimer, and apply it to the rest of my post. But…
Please explain how a transfer of the house now “almost certainly” would be considered a fraudulent conveyance, or a fraudulent transaction under bankruptcy law. The debt has not been incurred yet. It’s not even a contingent liability. The OP’s husband “may” need a new heart in the future. There’s no indication that the OP and her husband are presently insolvent. (Yes, I am aware of Sec. 547 and preference law.)
Contrary to what you say, the OP and her husband may very well benefit from some asset protection planning, even if South Carolina doesn’t recognize tenancy by the entireties, or make certain assets exempt from creditors. Again, though, I agree that only a SC attorney can give reliable advice on this point.
Read your policy and/or call the company. I was in a very serious accident over a year ago. The total bill was just over $1,000,000 ,we paid appx 2,500 total co-pays and the insurance paid appx. 750,000 under contract to the hospital. The remaining was written off by the hospital since under the contract the bill was considered paid in full.
Ah, Random, we meet again. With all due respect, your response here is a perfect illustration why number of posts is a weak surrogate for validity-of-point-of-view. You’re obviously working outside your field of expertise. For example, it’s not section 547 on preferences that applies. It’s section 548 on fraudulent transfers (not “transactions”), its analog under SC law, section 727(a)(2) (denial of discharge for certain fraudulent transfers) and the good faith confirmation test under section 1325(a)(3) (chapter 13 confirmations).
Why would this be an obvious fraudulent transfer? Because the diagnosis has already been made. Because the need to incur the debt has already been discovered. Because the motive for the transfer - to shield the asset from the debt - has already been formed. Would creditor have evidence issues? Of course. In a full and fair litigation with the facts fully presented, would creditor prevail? Almost certainly. Apparently you think only present creditors may complain of a fraudulent transfer. Not so. Look it up. (BTW, if SC recognized T/E, that actually would have been good for the Flowers, since this presumably will be an individual debt; unfortunately, insofar as I can determine, SC doesn’t.)
Returning to the question at hand, the problem, dflower, is that asset protection schemes are not risk-free. The one thing on which Random and I seem to agres is that whether you should pursue this strategy is a matter on which you really need the advice of a South Carolina lawyer.
Pbear, if it’s “almost certain” that a transfer like this would be reversed, you should be able to show me some cites to cases where it happened. Show me 5. Hell, show me 2. I’ll accept bankruptcy or South Carolina cases.
Just so we’re clear: We’re talking about a situation where one spouse may (not will) need a medical procedure at some point in the future. The couple is not insolvent now. The couple has medical insurance, but there’s a possibility that it might not cover a meaningful part of the charges. At this point, before it’s even sure that the medical procedure is needed, or that insurance will not cover a significant part of the bill, the spouse conveys the marital residence to the other spouse. At some later point, the procedure becomes necessary, and the fear that insurance won’t cover a big part of the bill comes true. The spouse can’t pay, and one of two things happens: 1) the hospital sues, gets a judgment and overturns the conveyance to the other spouse as a fraudulent conveyance; or 2) the spouse files bankruptcy, and the hospital gets a bankrupcty court order voiding the transfer (under any section of the code - you pick.)
Your legal advice is as bad as your medical advice. In the earlier thread, you suggested to the OP that medical advice (and what an M.D. said in the thread) was wrong. In this thread, you essentially said that a transfer of the family house between spouses was a waste of time - that it would almost certainly be considered a fraudulent transfer. In reality, such an action is a basic asset protection and estate planning strategy. I and other lawyers advise it often - it’s appropriate under many circumstances. Does it always work? No. Under these facts, does it work virtually all of the time? Yes. Is it certain to work if enough time passes between the date of transfer and the attempt to avoid it? Yes again.
But it’s your assertion. “Almost certain.” Two cases, please.
If the OP in each of these threads had accepted your suggestions as gospel, there was a real possibility that future events would significantly damage him or her. Dead in the other thread, and without the family house here. The earlier thread was closed, because of the risks associated with bad medical advice like yours. You threatened to leave in a snit because you were contradicted in that thread. Apparently you didn’t, and I’m not suggesting that you should. But I am suggesting the OP here would have been better off without your post today.
Random, I’ve not been here long enough to know whether you treat everyone like this. Nor do I quite understand why you’re being such a ****. One thing I have come to see since our prior exchange is that, thankfully, you are the exception. So, no, I won’t be going away. But nor will I be paying any attention to you. Frankly, life’s too short.
As for the issue at hand, are you claiming this is your field of expertise? (And I don’t mean took-a-class-in-law-school.) Are you claiming the Flowers would be taking no risk if they tranfer the house? Because you’re the one giving advice that could cause harm. I’m telling them there’s a significant risk and they should see a lawyer. The implication of what you’re saying is that they should save their money and roll the dice. IMHO, bad advice.
My first reply here made it very clear - I said it twice - that only a SC lawyer could give reliable advice here. We agree on that, at least. I never said, or even implied that the OP should “roll the dice” and do anything without competent advice, which no one here can give. My only point here is that your dismissal of the OP’s idea was not well thought out. Her suggestion might be appropriate under many circumstances and, accordingly, she should explore this issue further with SC counsel.
Oh, by the way, although I care little about your opinion of me, I believe personal insults (even ones that are cleverly obscured with little astericks) aren’t permitted outside the pit.
In other words, no, it’s not your area of expertise. It is mine, BTW, or one of them. Including having, once upon a time, clerked for a bankruptcy judge in the Fourth Circuit. Though, as I said from the beginning, I’m working from general principles and haven’t undertaken to research this specific scenario, much less in this jurisdiction. As for who is making an ad hominem attack on whom, I’ll leave that to the mods. If I’m out of line, they have an email address and can contact me directly. Likewise can they contact you. I think they’ll agree you hit first.
All of which is beside the point. The question is whether the Flowers should transfer title to the house. On this, you said, “does it work virtually all of the time? Yes.” That’s not hands-off, get advice-from-a-real-lawyer advice . That’s substantive advice. And, on the facts presented, as a matter of bankruptcy law, probably wrong. While weaseling out of responsibility by piously proclaiming that you told them to get a lawyer. Whereas I say they should get a lawyer because it’s a risky strategy that could, among other things, prevent Mr. Flower from getting a discharge in bankruptcy.
No wonder the mods don’t like legal (or medical) questions.
Medical questions and Legal questions which involve a real-life or potential real-life situation are frowned on here.
PBear42. Not only do you meet Random again, but you meet me.
I closed that medical advice thread where you were suggesting that if a doctor wouldn’t diagnose a patient over the phone, then the patient should get another doctor.
In this instance, we have two well-meaning posters, each with legal expertise. If you have a difference of opinions on legal or medical matters, then either of you is welcome to start a new thead in another forum more suited to debate/flaming, etc.