I wish I knew more about this ABLE account but you seem to know how they work. This Court Monitor is supposedly working in Abbie's best interest. Why would they include in their report something that would jeopardize benefits for Abbie? If Abbie goes over the $100k limit it just means her benefits would be suspended until she dropped below the limit again, right? What little I have read, it doesn't mean she would lose the benefits forever which is how the response to the Court Monitors report is written from the Maassholes lawyer. Nothing they do is in the best interest for Abbie so I want to believe their lawyer is trying to avoid Abbie getting any percentage. It would kill them if they lost control of their precious money and were forced to give Abbie a portion of what is made on social media. Two of the most despicable people I have ever seen.
Lost post alert!!
An ABLE account is a special type of savings account for disabled (per the Social Security Administration) people in the US.
It's separate from a Trust, which is a legal entity of sorts that holds assets like money, property, vehicles, investments, art, collectibles, anything with value in a kind of limbo generally for tax and/or inheritance purposes. Rather than John Smith owning a house and a bank account with $1 million in it, the Smith Family Trust owns those things with John Smith as the "trustee," or the person who can use and make decisions about those things. When John Smith dies, the Trust document will list the person(s) who will receive those things afterwards without having to pay taxes on them.
Example: John & Mary Smith own 3 houses, 1000 shares of Amazon stock, 15 pieces of antique furniture, and various bank accounts with $5 million in stages of liquid cash such as savings, checking retirement, and CD. They visit a lawyer and set up a living trust. Now, instead of those items being solely owned by John and Mary, they're "owned" by the Smith Family Trust with John and Mary in charge of all decisions regarding those things. Say John and Mary die in a car crash. They have 3 children. Those children are listed in the trust document as the beneficiaries, and John and Mary have outlined in the trust that each child gets a house, 1/3 of the stocks, 1/3 of the cash assets in the bank, and that the antique furniture is to be divvied up equally or sold with the money being divided equally. All three children receive all of those assets without having to pay taxes on them or mess around with probate court. It's hassle-free and tax-free. It also keeps John's affair partner and illegitimate daughter from having any access to the money; they're not named as a beneficiary in the trust so they have no claim to the money or property.
A Special Needs Trust works in a somewhat similar fashion in that money, properties, etc are held specifically for the use of a disabled adult as set up by their parent/s, grandparent/s, or other specified caregiver/s. Let's say John and Mary set up a SNT containing a small house, $500k in cash, and another $1 million in high-interest investments. Those assets can only be used for the care of the beneficiary: Jane Smith, the disabled adult daughter of John & Mary. Jane lives in the house. The cash pays for her food, house maintenance, leisure activities, and other costs of dailing living. The interest earned on the investments replenishes the cash available as long as they stick to a careful budget. Jane is moderately autistic - enough that she can't work a typical full time job but not so much that she needs round the clock care. Jane also has kidney disease. Her medical bills are potentially enormous and would completely drain her daily living funds if it weren't for disability Medicaid. She needs some in-home nursing care for things like taking her meds, maybe dialysis, IV hydration, just a variety of things. The Special Needs Trust allows Jane to live comfortably while still being able to have her significant medical needs supported by the state via Medicaid. Once John and Mary, Jane's parents, pass away she'll be able to access additional in-home supportive care that her parents had been providing such as help with meals, transportation, cleaning, and so on.
Being disabled in the US is almost always a poverty setence unless your family is very rich. To be able to access Social Security (SSI), SNAP (food stamps), Medicaid, some housing programs, some types of Medicare, Medicaid waivers, and other vital programs to help disabled people survive day to day
you cannot have any reasonable amount of money in the bank. The limit can be as low as
$2000. You literally lose access to these programs for doing the responsible thing and saving some money.
An ABLE account allows for a more reasonable savings without affecting vital programs for disabled people. There's still a limit, but benefits start getting reduced at a balance of $100,000 for the bare minimum SSI cash benefit. The funds in an ABLE account can only be used for the benefit of the disabled person - similar restrictions to SSI cash benefits - so it's not a free for all, but it does allow for a more reasonable amount of savings.
Example: John and Mary Smith are lower middle-class office workers who share a car. They own a house that Mary received via inheritance. They budget carefully and live modestly but are one major car repair away from disaster. Their disabled adult daughter Jane lives with them and receives basic disability benefits. That $941 per month from SSI often makes the difference between paying the power bill on time or not. John and Mary live paycheck to paycheck with a "safety cushion" of $1500 in the bank for emergencies. Their one car blows a transmission. They have no money to fix it, no money for a down payment on something else, no money for a new car payment, and Jane needs to be taken to doctor's appointments or therapy weekly due to her disabilities. This would be that disaster - but they have an ABLE account for Jane. They've been putting some of their tax refund in the account every year, John's uncle contributes $100/month to help out, Mary's parents contribute $500/month. There's $50,000 in the ABLE account; they can use that money to fix the transmission, or to buy a reliable used car outright, because Jane needs transportation. They can continue to receive the $941/month from SSI which keeps their head above water, Jane can continue her therapy/medical appointments, John and Mary can continue to go to work each day, the family doesn't become homeless.
*************************
As to why the court monitor would jeopardize Abbie's benefits?
My thought on that is that the monitor determined that Abbie's "fair share" of the Maass Media money far outweighs the benefit she receives from sources such as SSI and Medicaid.
Abbie is on the Medicaid waiver. That's her medical care incuding psych meds, her incontinence products, her respite care, therapies (if she actually got any), The Program™ this school year, any sort of day program or "vocational" program they manage to get her in, etc - that's all covered already. The
waiver part of Medicaid waiver means that the state waives some of the restrictiosn to access the program. They can have a much higher income, have more assets, and so on and Abbie can still get those disability services managed through Medicaid.
Abbie receives $941 per month from Social Security due to her disabilities and the fact that she's a disabled adult with zero income. That's the maximum cash benefit provided to disabled people per month. She could earn a little bit of money and still receive that $941 - a little under $15,000 per year as an individual. In fact, the amount is likely $14,580 per year. That number should look familiar and if it doesn't go back and look at the court filing.
(yes, that maximum amount contributed to an ABLE account is also the same amount an individual can earn per year while still receiving SSI benefits)
The court monitor believes Abbie is entitled to
a percentage of the net income of the social media enterprise.
That percentage is undoubtedly WAY more than the $941 per month Abbie receives from Social Security. The court has a full, unfettered accounting of "the social media enterprise" and so does the monitor. He KNOWS how much money they're pulling in yearly. He's saying (just throwing out some round numbers here) "Hey, Abbie is featured in roughly 15% of the content on their combined monetized social media. According to the IRS this social media enterprise is bringing in $100,000 per month net income. Abbie is entitled to 15% of that net income so you need to be paying her $15,000 per month for her work."
The court monitor is almost certainly trying to demand that Abbie receive a fair wage for her work (even if that work is simply her image being exploited), likely to be placed in a trust overseen/managed by the courts.
Asa and Priscilla are trying to keep all the money they bring in via Maass Media, Lipstick Mama, and so on AND TO STILL RECEIVE THE $941 PER MONTH (which is paid to Asa as Abbie's representative payee) FROM SOCIAL SECURITY.
---
Ugh. That's ridiculous.
When my father became disabled and had to enter a nursing home we had to apply for Medicaid. We had to provide copious amounts of proof that he had no assets, owned no property in the prior three years or transferred a deed to a family member/friend, prove how much his vehicle sold for- and then I had to pay the state the difference on the vehicle because it was above their guidelines.
Once he was in care with Medicaid and Medicare, his entire SSDI (and later straight SS/retirement) was paid to the nursing home except for $39, which was his.
After he passed away the state of Ohio's Medicaid Recovery came knocking again two years later. I had to provide
my bank statements and receipt from the funeral home that I personally paid for his cremation and I hadnt had some type of "cash infusion" for six months prior to, and after his passing. (Hidden assets, annuities, vehicles, property, etc.)
But Abbie can chill in the manor with the possibility of 24 hr care provide by her waiver? I am not saying she isn't deserving, but its BS!!
Disabilities that begin in childhood have different guidelines than adult-onset disabilities, especially when nursing homes come into play.
Medicaid goes
feral when it comes to nursing care for the elderly and it's disgusting.
"The measure of a society is how it treats its weakest members."
Hello
if you want me to forward you this bitcoin link that just popped up in my email.
. Sorry but that can’t be unseen.
