<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Law Office of Donald D. Vanarelli Blog</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.dvanarelli.com/blog/?feed=rss2" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.dvanarelli.com/blog</link>
	<description>New Jersey Elder Law, Estate and Special Needs Planning, Mediation and Collaborative Family Law NJ</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2013 18:03:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Ownership Of Joint And Payable-On-Death (“POD”) Accounts, Before And After Death: Who Owns What?</title>
		<link>http://www.dvanarelli.com/blog/?p=10609</link>
		<comments>http://www.dvanarelli.com/blog/?p=10609#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2013 18:03:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>dvanar</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Estate Administration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Estate Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Financial Exploitation of the Elderly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News Briefs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Non-Probate Assets]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dvanarelli.com/blog/?p=10609</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[THE MULTIPLE-PARTY DEPOSIT ACCOUNT ACT Bank accounts are often established in the name of more than one party. Questions may arise regarding the rights of ownership of these accounts, during the lifetime of the owners or after an owner’s death. In New Jersey, joint accounts (using either an “and” or an “or” designation), and payable-on-death [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.dvanarelli.com/blog/?feed=rss2&#038;p=10609</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court Finds Medicaid Applicant Who Paid Disabled Daughter&#8217;s Rent For Many Years Subject to Penalty Period</title>
		<link>http://www.dvanarelli.com/blog/?p=10592</link>
		<comments>http://www.dvanarelli.com/blog/?p=10592#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Jun 2013 21:27:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>dvanar</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Care Facilities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Governmental or Public Benefit Programs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medicaid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medicaid Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nursing Homes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transfers For Reasons Other Than To Qualify For Medicaid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transfers to Disabled Adult Children]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dvanarelli.com/blog/?p=10592</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Medicaid applicant who made payments to her daughter for more than four years and claimed those payments were made to cover the cost of monthly payments for her mentally ill daughter&#8217;s rent could not prove the payments were made for a purpose other than to qualify for Medicaid because she did not prove that [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.dvanarelli.com/blog/?feed=rss2&#038;p=10592</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>NJ Federal Judge Finds Annuity Purchased By Spouse Of Medicaid Applicant With Couple’s Excess Resources Is An Exempt Asset</title>
		<link>http://www.dvanarelli.com/blog/?p=10557</link>
		<comments>http://www.dvanarelli.com/blog/?p=10557#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Jun 2013 21:51:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>dvanar</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Annuities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Governmental or Public Benefit Programs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medicaid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medicaid Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Cases]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dvanarelli.com/blog/?p=10557</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A federal district court in New Jersey holds that an annuity purchased by the spouse of a Medicaid applicant with the couple’s countable resources which exceeded the resource limit under Medicaid is not a transfer for less than fair market value for purposes of Medicaid eligibility. Carlini v. Velez (U.S. Dist. Ct., D.N.J., No. 12-7290 (JEI/KMW), [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.dvanarelli.com/blog/?feed=rss2&#038;p=10557</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Proposed Legislation Introduced Establishing A Look-Back Period And Gift Penalties For Veterans Applying For VA Pension Benefits</title>
		<link>http://www.dvanarelli.com/blog/?p=10554</link>
		<comments>http://www.dvanarelli.com/blog/?p=10554#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Jun 2013 11:24:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>dvanar</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[New Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News Briefs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[VA Pension Benefits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Veterans Benefits]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dvanarelli.com/blog/?p=10554</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Senate Bill 748, entitled the “Veterans Pension Protection Act,” was introduced on April 17, 2013. The bill directs the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to consider the resources of individuals applying for VA pension that were disposed of for less than fair market value when determining the eligibility of applicants for pension benefits, including Homebound [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.dvanarelli.com/blog/?feed=rss2&#038;p=10554</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court Resolves Conflicting Provisions In Divorce Settlement Agreement And Life Insurance Beneficiary Designations</title>
		<link>http://www.dvanarelli.com/blog/?p=10561</link>
		<comments>http://www.dvanarelli.com/blog/?p=10561#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Jun 2013 15:37:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>dvanar</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Child Support]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Divorce Mediation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Family Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Life Insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Spousal Support]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dvanarelli.com/blog/?p=10561</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thomas v. Thomas, Docket No. A-2388-11T2 (N.J. Super. App. Div. June 4, 2013), involved competing claims against a $1 million life insurance policy maintained by the decedent. Mr. Thomas was survived by a wife, as well as an ex-wife, with whom he had 2 children. Pursuant to the Property Settlement Agreement (“PSA”) between Mr. Thomas [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.dvanarelli.com/blog/?feed=rss2&#038;p=10561</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Top 10 (Actually 9) Noteworthy Cases Involving New Jersey Trusts, Including Special Needs Trusts</title>
		<link>http://www.dvanarelli.com/blog/?p=10535</link>
		<comments>http://www.dvanarelli.com/blog/?p=10535#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 May 2013 17:46:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>dvanar</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Assignments of Income]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Distribution Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Estate Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intestate Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Special Needs Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Special Needs Trusts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Top Ten]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trusts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dvanarelli.com/blog/?p=10535</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The following post contains a summary of the noteworthy trust cases decided by New Jersey courts in the past year and a half, in chronological order. I also included links to the articles about the cases posted on this blog.  (1)    Pfeifer v. Langone, 2012 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 429 (App. Div. Feb. 29, 2012). [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.dvanarelli.com/blog/?feed=rss2&#038;p=10535</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>SSA Revises Regulations, Permits First-Party Trusts to Pay for Non-Beneficiary Travel in Some Cases</title>
		<link>http://www.dvanarelli.com/blog/?p=10528</link>
		<comments>http://www.dvanarelli.com/blog/?p=10528#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 May 2013 13:14:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>dvanar</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Distribution Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elder Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Governmental or Public Benefit Programs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medicaid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Security Benefits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Special Needs Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Special Needs Trusts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Benefits]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dvanarelli.com/blog/?p=10528</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Social Security Administration (SSA) has revised its Program Operations Manual System (POMS) to allow first-party trusts to pay for travel expenses incurred by non-beneficiaries in limited cases. In addition, the revised POMS clarifies the rule that payment of some administrative expenses upon early termination of the trust or otherwise, including trustee fees, will not [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.dvanarelli.com/blog/?feed=rss2&#038;p=10528</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The VA’s New “Fully Developed Claim” Process</title>
		<link>http://www.dvanarelli.com/blog/?p=10508</link>
		<comments>http://www.dvanarelli.com/blog/?p=10508#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 19:09:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>dvanar</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Medicaid Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[VA Compensation Benefits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[VA Pension Benefits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Veterans Benefits]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dvanarelli.com/blog/?p=10508</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Fully Developed VA Claims The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has implemented a new process designed to expedite claims for VA benefits having all information required by the agency and all required supporting  evidence. The new process, officially titled in 38 CFR §20.1509(a) as the &#8220;Expedited Claims Adjudication Initiative-Pilot Program,&#8221;  is unofficially called the Fully [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.dvanarelli.com/blog/?feed=rss2&#038;p=10508</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Undue Influence</title>
		<link>http://www.dvanarelli.com/blog/?p=10286</link>
		<comments>http://www.dvanarelli.com/blog/?p=10286#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 00:48:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>dvanar</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Elder Abuse]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elder Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Estate Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Undue Influence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dvanarelli.com/blog/?p=10286</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[After an individual’s death, litigation regarding the decedent’s estate can arise in a variety of contexts. A common claim asserted in a lawsuit challenging the validity of a decedent&#8217;s Last Will and Testament is that the will was the result of “Undue Influence.” &#8220;Undue Influence&#8221; is defined by our courts as “’mental, moral or physical’ [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.dvanarelli.com/blog/?feed=rss2&#038;p=10286</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Excessive Texting&#8221; From One Divorced Parent To The Other Does Not Necessarily Amount To Harassment</title>
		<link>http://www.dvanarelli.com/blog/?p=8139</link>
		<comments>http://www.dvanarelli.com/blog/?p=8139#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 04:13:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>dvanar</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Domestic Violence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Family Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Other Claims By And Between Divorcing Spouses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Texting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Web Sites and the Internet]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dvanarelli.com/blog/?p=8139</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[New Jersey appeals court reversed a final restraining order entered in a domestic violence lawsuit, holding that “excessive texting&#8221; from one divorced parent to the other does not necessarily amount to harassment. L.M.F. v. J.A.F.,Jr.,  Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, Docket No. A-0121-10T3, approved for publication. The parties married in 1989 and divorced [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.dvanarelli.com/blog/?feed=rss2&#038;p=8139</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
