Eldercaring Coordination
Portia B. Scott, J.D., L.L.M. • May 1, 2021

Where to turn when no one agrees on what to do.

There have been pilot programs running in eight of Florida’s judicial circuits (our local circuit, the 19th, is not one of them) which were aimed to try to lessen conflict and strife between conflicting family members of a vulnerable adult.

 

The idea is that in “high conflict” families, such as families whose members cannot agree on what is the best treatment going forward for a loved one, the skills of a neutral person should be employed. “Employed” is the exact term, of course, as there is a fee along with duties including confidentiality, impartiality and integrity. 

 

The goals are to include the vulnerable adult in the process as much as possible, eliminate (or, at least reduce) the hostility which can erupt between otherwise loving family members when the choice of care for their vulnerable adult is not unanimous and, ultimately, allow the vulnerable adult peace at the end of life.

 

Presently, this Eldercaring Coordination may only be implemented through a court order. Thus, it appears the utility of the program may be limited to Guardianship matters before a Guardian has been appointed, as once a Guardian is appointed, there is little motivation to relinquish the authority granted by the Court to the Guardian.

 

Critics of Eldercaring Coordination point to possibility of reduction in the authority of the Court-Appointed Guardian, of the requirement of agreement and concomitant issues with enforcement, and the potential abuse limiting the Court’s involvement where the Court’s historic role has been that of Super-Guardian, that is, the supervisor of the Guardian.

 

The pilot programs were aimed at gathering the information before the drafting of a Statute of implementation, a recognition of the problems of Florida’s initial attempt at a similar style of authority granted under the State’s Parent Coordination laws.


Now, House Bill 441 and Senate Bill 368 are drafted and ready for full Legislative consideration.

 

The bill, presumedly, will allow a Court who is facing a family in conflict over the proper care for their elderly loved one who cannot make decisions for him or herself, to appoint a “coordinator” who will be empowered to evaluate the situation and provide recommendations to the Court on how best to enrich the elderly person’s life.

 

So, the coordinator may recommend that the fighting siblings only visit on alternate days; may recommend a one of them to take over the finances with the elderly person’s consent and direction, may even recommend family counseling. Everything would be less restrictive than the alternative: Guardianship.

 

When dealing with the elderly, it is always best to have options.  

 

Please see Florida Chapter of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts for more information.

 

Share this article

Homestead Equity Uses for the Elderly

By Portia B. Scott, J.D., L.L.M. • September 22, 2025
For many families, the home is the single asset with the most value. I understand that financial planners do not like to include the equity in the home when making determinations of wealth, but sometimes it is worth considering. Three questions and accompanying scenarios especially come to mind for the Elder Law practitioner. First, how can a client use the equity in the home to fulfill the client's desire to age in place? Second, does the client need to spend all of the home's value before Medicaid will help when moving into long term care? Third, what, if anything, can be left by the client for the children once the client is gone? In Florida, the answers are as follow. If the client has significant equity in the client's home, a Home Equity Line of Credit ("HELOC") or a Reverse Mortgage are options to be considered. The differences between the two are that a HELOC tends to be less expensive way of accessing the equity in the home, at least initially, but does require monthly repayments to be made on the loan. So, the borrower witl need to include some repayment in the monthly household budget. The borrower has greater options about where the borrower lives. For instance, if the borrower chooses to go live in an assisted living facility, as long as the HELOC is being repaid, there is no issue. This means, among other things, the borrower could rent the property out and use the net proceeds to pay the HELOC. (There are other issues this would bring up including those regarding homestead, however.) A Reverse Mortgage, on the other hand, tends to be more expensive (typically higher interest rates and, often, origination expenses) but does not have to be paid back until the borrower dies or otherwise stops living in the home. This means that if the borrower wants to live at home, the borrower can use the equity to pay for household expenses, taxes, home health aides or companions, lawn care and any other duties the borrower can not, or maybe just does not want to, perform. Does the dient need to spend all of the home's value before Medicaid will help with long term care? Not in Florida, no. In 2025 if a single persons owns a home with less than $730,000.00 in equity and that person need Medicaid to help with long term care bills (nursing home), as long as the patient otherwise meets Medicaid requirements, the patient may keep their home. When the person passes away, the family can inherit the home without worrying about that particular asset being subject to Medicaid State Estate Recovery ("claw back"). With the right plan in place, the last, possibly most valuable asset of the nursing home patient, the client can create the legacy for the children after the patient is gone. More than $730,000.00 in equity? Maybe the client can borrow against the house and use the funds (not gifting the funds) thereby lowering the actual equity down to below $730,000.00? Buying a more expensive car, putting on that new roof the insurance company is going to require soon anyway, upgrading to impact windows, remodeling the kitchen with all new appliances and flooring throughout, taking a trip to see loved ones, paying estimated future income taxes: all of these are ways to spend that "excess" equity. For a married couple when one of them is in a nursing home and the other is not and remains in the community, this community spouse does not have to spend down any of the equity of the house the couple owns.  Finally, if a homestead is left to someone who is descended from the homeowner's grandparent (l know, it is a long way to say blood relative), the home can be left to such a person without having to pay Medicaid any of the asset the homestead represents. Further, because of the "stepped up" basis in the house, leaving a home can truly create a way of ensuring an inheritance which many people consider very valuable indeed.

No, the Judge will not fix it for you.

By Portia B. Scott, J.D., L.L.M. • June 4, 2025
I have, from time to time, an opportunity to review family law agreements when dealing with a probate estate proceeding or a Trust administration. These family law agreements can take the form of a Divorce Decree, Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage, a Post-Nuptial Agreement, an Ante-Nuptial agreement (often called a "Pre-Nup"), mediation agreements and temporary orders which might include temporary alimony payments plus of course, the common charging liens filed by attorneys involved. I also get to review Qualified Domestic Relations Orders ("QDRO's") from time to time. Many of these documents are drafted without the help of an attorney. Sometimes, they will have been drafted by a paralegal or another lay-person, sometimes by the parties themselves. When I make inquiry of the parties about the documents, I often find the people who drafted them believe that, if there were a Judge involved in the underlying matter, the Judge would "fix" the document if it were wrong. So, if a Pre-Nup calls for extra alimony in the case of one party's infidelity, and, if that is not something the law books would allow, they believe that the Judge would tell them so and strike it from the agreement. Similarly, if someone's settlement agreement provides for one party to pay the other alimony even in the event of the remarriage of the party receiving alimony, the paying spouse believes that the Judge will tell them that Florida law does not require such payments to continue. The judge might similarly strike a provision for "permanent alimony" if the legislature had prohibited judges from ordering permanent alimony. Even if a QDRO was ordered to divide up one party's 401(k), some people believe the Judge will create the QDRO. None of this is true. If you come before the Court with an agreement, you can actually change the law as it applies to your own case. So, if permanent alimony has been ended by the legislature, but you agree to it in your settlement agreement, the Judge is not going to advise you that you are going against what authority the Court would have if you had not settled and had gone to trial. The Judge may ask you if you really agree to these terms and, if so, enter the Order requiring more than the Judge could ever have ordered at a contested trial. The best you can hope for from a Judge is when the judge sees the document - if the Judge reads it- is for the Judge to tell you to consult an attorney. If a Judge ever does tell you something like, "you really should talk to an attorney," this is a big red flag and you should take the Judge's advice. The Judge cannot, may not give you any advice other than to recommend you speak with an attorney. The long and short of it is there are reasons why it can often end up being less expensive to consult an attorney than to do some work for yourself.