Family says auction of WWII relics is a 'gross dishonor'

[YBR31]

Source: Ktvb.com

EMMETT -- Memorabilia from an Idaho World War II Veteran will be on theauction block in a week. His relatives want to keep it in the family or in a museum.The late Colonel Charles Wesley Sawyer ... was born to homesteaders in Emmett, went to school in Emmett and studied at the University of Idaho before volunteering to serve in the military."He was one of a handful of American volunteer group people, also known as Flying Tigers," said his only living child, Charles Robert Sawyer.
Colonel Sawyer returned to the U.S. in 1943. In 1970, he married Edith, his second wife. Sawyer died just eight years later."[Edith] received all his assets according to his will," said Charles Robert Sawyer. Age and illness eventually got the best of Edith."She became an indigent ward of the State of Idaho, which provided her services because it was determined that she couldn't care for herself," said Charles Robert Sawyer.
Charles and his uncle Larry, Sawyer's brother, tried to buy the Sawyer's relics from Edith. When she died, they tried to buy them from her estate, but couldn't.m"The state has stepped in to take control of the estate because Edith benefited from the State Department of Health and Welfare, which is now trying to recoup its costs," said Charles Robert Sawyer.
The state plans to do that by selling the family heirlooms at auction. Sawyer said the items are worth, at most, $20,000 or $30,000. That's just a small portion of what he said Edith owes the state. The Sawyer family wanted to give Col. Sawyer's flight jacket and framed flag to a museum. The rest, they planned to keep in the family.

"It's particularly painful because this is Memorial Day, when we're supposed to honor our veterans, and what's happening is a gross dishonor," he said.Charles and the Sawyer family just want to honor their decorated family member. "I think on one hand he would be outraged," Charles Robert Sawyer said. "On the other hand, I think he would be proud that we are putting up a fight to preserve his legacy."

Read more: http://www.ktvb.com/news/local/Family-says-auction-of-WWII-relics-is-a-gross-dishonor-154641155.html

---

The State of Idaho is dishonoring two vets, a WWII Flying Tiger and his only living child, a Navy veteran.

[sharp_stick]

1. That's disgusting

I'm surprised the State doesn't realize just how bad this makes them look.

[YBR31]

2. That's how Idaho honors its Veterans for Memorial Day

[UnrepentantLiberal]

3. A job a sociopath would love.

[grasswire]

4. the only good in this is that the stuff WILL go to someone who appreciates it...

....and will care for it. Any WW2 collector is as interested in keeping it safe as the family is. The problem is that it will disappear into a collection and the family won't have access. I hope the fam can buy it at auction.

[Scuba]

5. I'll bet the guy who thought this was a good idea has ...

... one of those little fucking yellow ribbons on his car.

[lynne]

6. Not sure this is confined to any one state -

- as a similar situation occurred with my grandfather. His entire estate had to be auctioned for him to be eligible to go into a nursing home as he would be receiving state aid.

As my grandparents got older, they gave important and sentimental items to different family members so they were not included in the auction. That's what should have occurred here and there would have been no problem.

[MADem]

10. Yes. That's what happens when a person becomes a "ward of the state." It's a rather painful thing.

Your grandparents knew the score--as many smart people do as they age. Give away the family treasures, strip down and simplify the lifestyle, and prepare for the last chapter.

That whole "liquidating assets" thing is common in many states, maybe all of 'em.

[happyslug]

28. It is only MANDATED by Federal Law

You have to understand, Welfare remains a State function, but since the Great Depression the Federal Government has agreed to pay 50% of the cost of Welfare in regards to any family with children less then age 18 AND since the mid 1960s has agreed to pay 100% of the cost of anyone in an long term care facility,

Now, the Federal Government will ONLY reimburse the State for the cost of Long Term Medical Care, if the person is eligible for welfare in that state. i.e. all of their assets are gone except for $2000.

Thus ALL States go after assets of people in Long Term Nursing care. If they do NOT, the Federal Government will NOT reimburse them for the cost of the long term medical care. Each state does it differently, but the results are the same, no assets.

Now, if you have assets, you have to spend them to pay for the long term medical care. Most people's assets are gone within three to six months, which means at that point the Feds pick up the tab. The State MUST make every effort to get those assets, including undoing any give always done within Five years of going into the Nurising Home.

Remember Medicare only pays for three days of long term medical care, after three says, you have to pay for it yourself OR have Medicaid (Welfare) pay for the care. These are the FEDERAL RULES the States MUST follow and Apply. Thus, the actual practice varies from State to State, the results are same nationwide.

[MADem]

29. Yes, and in Edith's case here, the federal rules applied.

Since Edith was the second wife, and the husband had been gone for awhile, I don't think those "treasures" were going to "the family" in any event. The time for them to go to "the family" was when Charlie the War Hero died. I mean, really--the kids were expecting to swoop in and take stuff from the second wife? Naaah. I found Edith's obituary online--she was no "war widow." She married that old reprobate in 1970, and he died less than a decade later. Old Charlie's kid or nephew or what-have-you are not listed as her "survivors"--so I think they're just trying to "get the stuff" now that Edith is gone. They should have gotten the stuff back when Charlie died, IMO. The biggest irony? Edith was a die-hard Republican--and here she is, relying on that awful FEDERAL government for her room and board in her final days:

Edith married Don Rekow in 1943 and although they were later divorced they remained good friends. In 1970, she met and married the love of her life Col. Charles W. Sawyer. Chuck was a USAF original AVG Flying Tiger and because of his honored military service they traveled worldwide and met many dignitaries such as the then president of China, Chaing Kai-Shek. They also met many movie stars, including John Wayne who starred in the movie "The Flying Tigers." Chuck died suddenly in 1978 and at that time Edith began volunteering tirelessly for different community, political and civic organizations.
Edith belonged to numerous organizations in which she held offices; 4-H Youth, Civil Defense, Gem County Fair and Rodeo as secretary; the Idaho Republican Party, serving as State Committee Woman and the Secretary of the Gem County Central Committee (where she traveled to Washington to attend several conventions); Snake River Cattleman's Assoc., as secretary; Gem Lion's Club, secretary-treasurer; The Kiwanis Club, secretary-treasurer; Idaho Angus Assoc., as secretary; Gem County Chamber, president; and also the Morrison Center Auxiliary, president. Edith was the recipient of many honors and awards during her lifetime and service, including: the Idaho Republican Hall of Fame (for over 60 years of dedicated service); Emmett Jaycee's Woman of the year; Lion's Foundation "Melvin Jones Fellowship Award," which is their highest honor for dedicated Humanitarian Services; Edith received an award for 32 years of dedicated service from the Idaho Army National Guard; and she was the Grand Marshal for the Gem County Cherry Festival in 2007.
She had many exciting life experiences such as meeting influential people of our country, as a child Edith was able to witness the landing of Lindbergh's "Spirit of St. Louis;" and was able to see President Roosevelt in a touring car when he came to Parma, Idaho. She also met Vice-President Richard Nixon, Presidents Truman and George Bush Sr. and Nelson Rockefeller.
Edith was preceded in death by her parents; her brothers, Everett and Wayne Murray; great nephew, Bodhi Moore; and her loving husband, Chuck.
She is survived by her sister, Joyce (Martin) Larsen; nephew, Richard D. Parks; and nieces, Pamela Parks all of Emmett, Penny (Dr. Tom) Woodward of Meridian, Lisa (Troy) Knapp of New Plymouth, and numerous great nieces and nephews.

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/messenger-index/obituary.aspx?n=edith-m-sawyer&pid=156835749&fhid=6421

But no stepson? This is a very complete obituary, going into great detail. I'm starting to think that the relatives of "Chuck" are just looking for a payday. They had from 1978 to get Chuck's "goodies," yet they didn't. I'm thinking there was a bit of bad blood over Chuck taking a 2nd bride...! If you read the son's complaint on the internet, he sounds like he resents old Edith--all these years after Chuck married her in 1970--even in death. I am just not buying all this--there's more here than meets the eye:

http://www.forums.flyingtigersavg.com/index.php?tid=494&threaded=true

When I was growing up, my father told me that his flight jacket, and other items that memorialize his extraordinary courage and career in aviation would be mine after his death. He instructed Edith to make sure I received these invaluable items when she died. She did not fulfill my father's wishes.

I have three children who treasure their grandfather's memory. They have three young children of their own (Chuck's great-grandchildren), and they and I want them and their own decedents to share Chuck's exceptional legacy.

I'll be blunt--I don't believe this guy. Chuck has been dead for thirty four years now--were his kids even ALIVE when Chuck died, I wonder? I think if there was any kind of relationship between Chuck's kid and Edith, there'd be mention of step-grandchildren in the obit. I also think that if Chuck wanted his kid to have his jacket, he'd have put that in his will, not said "Oh, Edith, you hand that over to my kid ... WHEN YOU DIE..." like she's wearing the thing every other day. I think Chuck's kid resented Edith for removing his father from the family home and I would not be surprised if there was little to no relationship ongoing there. Unless Chuck put his wishes in writing, the kids have no recourse save bid on the items with everyone else who might be interested in a Flying Tigers leather jacket and a few other pieces.

[may3rd]

7. "Edith owes the state"

Does that sound familiar to those dealing with elder care laws ?

This is what happens if you fail to hide assets from the state by redistributing the wealth to family in a timely manner.

The fact that these are memento's of war has nothing to do with the real story between the lines

[MADem]

14. It's not "hiding" to give gifts to your loved ones.

The thing is, the person has to be willing to make the gift. Edith, for whatever reason, was not willing. Neither was her husband.

Maybe they didn't know any better, and didn't understand the consequences of their choices. Or maybe they thought, like we all do, that they'd live forever.

[MADem]

8. The family would have been well advised to assist Edith with her estate planning prior to her death.

This is what happens when the elderly are left to their own devices and become wards of the state. Had Edith given the stuff away while she was alive, as well as perhaps more competent to make decisions, there would have not been this problem.

I think there's more to this story than we're seeing, sadly--it looks to me like Edith perhaps didn't want to part with the items and didn't care what happened to them after the fact. It's also a shame that Charlie hadn't thought to hand off his stuff to his son or brother or a museum in his will, instead of doing the "All To My Bride" type of will. That would have preserved the items in the family, as well. Perhaps he expected his son to take in his wife and see to her care upon his death..? Or maybe he didn't care what happened to his stuff after he passed on?

The state isn't necessarily "dishonoring" any vets. They're just recouping their expenditure via the auction process. They'd do that if the estate consisted of a totem pole collection, a bunch of nude paintings or a stamp collection. Military memorabilia isn't sacred. It's stuff that folks who are unfortunate enough to be bolloxed up in wartime sometimes collect. It's interesting, it's evocative, it tells a story, but I don't think that the "family" is particularly entitled to it in these specific and very particular circumstances--after all, it's just STUFF, and it's stuff that was meaningful to a guy who is dead now and his crewmates, that tells a story about a very rough time in our nation's history. If the son had taken his mom in to his home (and I don't blame him that he didn't, particularly if she had issues that required constant care) this whole situation wouldn't be happening.

With any luck, if the family members can't get the items back, the state will sell them to someone--an individual or museum-- who will give them the care and attention that they merit.

[YBR31]

11. Edith was not the son's mother.

If you read the article or view the video, it states that Edith was Charles. Second wife. He was only married to her 8 years before he IDE. The son probably had his hands full caring or his actual mother, the first wife.

[MADem]

15. That's even more unfortunate--then the one to pissed at is Charlie, the vet himself.

Look, the bottom line is this--it was Charlie's shit, and his to do with as he pleased. If he didn't want to give it to his kid, well, the one to be annoyed at is Charlie--not the state. Charlie could have given the stuff to his family members while he lived, instead of leaving it to his second wife.

Making the state the bad guy here isn't helpful. Charlie had his own reasons, it was his junk, and the bottom line? It's just stuff.

[marble falls]

13. I think you read an awful lot into the facts we were given. At face value ....

of what the facts were, I think maybe the family itself is not well to do themselves. As long as you are reading into it, I'd like to propose an alternative scenario: the much younger second wife after whirlwinding dad into a marriage and dad died suddenly and the second missus blew the pension, insurance and everything else that comes from a Colonel retired from military all to hell on her children from previous marriages, cheap champagne, boyfriends met while lineancing at some beer joint during a Parents-of-older-children-with-out-partners outing.

But that's just pure speculation on my part.

[MADem]

16. Well, there's always the scenario of the rakish war hero dumping his faithful first wife for a hot

younger model, and saying "To hell with the kids, I'm partying."

Bottom line--it was Charlie's shit. Not "the family's" but Charlie's. Charlie chose to not leave his stuff to "the family" and that's not the fault of "the state."

If Charlie left his second wife a military pension--an annuity--she couldn't have "blown through it." They're paid monthly--no chance to spend it all. First of the month, direct deposit, and an annuity on an 0-5/6 (was he a bird COL or LCOL?) would be enough to survive, and in concert with SSB, enough to live fairly comfortably, if modestly. That's not speculation, though--that's how military annunities are managed.

Odds are good, too, that the FIRST wife got the SBP, not the second because the election has to be made upon retirement (or, for some of the older geezers who qualified post retirement during the Open Season sign-ups, when the offers were made to the retirees), and once the beneficiary is in place, the beneficiary has to approve any changes to the annuity.

If the first wife got the survivor benefit plan annuity as an element of her divorce, no wonder old Charlie left the memorabilia to Number Two--he figured she'd need it, since the first wife got the annuity.

What we're doing here is indeed speculating, you know--it's what people do when they read a news story. They dissect it, discuss it, and offer differing views. Why you're getting all shirty because I'm "speculating" is a mystery to me....but whatever. You have a nice day, eh?

[marble falls]

23. McCain left his wife immediately after returning from Hanoi .....

and of course her near crippling injuries from an auto accident just prior to his release had not a thing to do with it.

Who got "shirty" with you? I only wondered why you were so cavalierly dismissing the claims a family might have on a war hero's war mementos and mementos from his service to the nation based on your speculative scenario. I guess the only scenario you're interested in is your own. A nice day right back at you in aces and spades.

[MADem]

25. Not immediately....but he was cheating well before he met his current missus...!

He was a serial philanderer while he was working at OLA--so notorious that his conduct, even more than than his legendary terrible temper, was likely the reason he didn't make flag. His first wife, though, will never say a bad word about him, because he continued to raise her sons (those lads of his are adopted from his first wife--their biological father was the abusive first husband of McCain's first wife) and he gave her his entire retirement check and then some as a condition of their divorce. He knew he was a shithead as a spouse, and he didn't leave the first wife in the lurch, financially speaking. Of course, the second wife is rolling in dough, so no worries for him!

The shirtiness was the unwillingness to contemplate other scenarios. You don't have to agree, but getting annoyed when someone comes up with an alternative idea is just a waste of energy, IMO. A simple "I have another idea" will do. I don't "dismiss" anyone's claims--I discuss. This is a discussion board, after all. I am more than willing to hear the 'speculations' of others.

I'm no war hero, but I served, and I retired--and I can tell you that most people who have served aren't overly invested in that
"I Love Me" military shit. The ones who drool over it are the ones who never put the uniform on. If the junk was worth anything, and the first wife was indeed getting the SBP, no wonder he left it to Number Two. He'd be a total dog if he didn't!

[marble falls]

9. Jeezel Peezel, what is wrong with these conservative guvmits? Its one thing to auction ....

this type of belonging from someone without family to leave it to. Words fail.

I'd contribute to a fund to get these possessions back into family hands.

[MADem]

12. It's not a conservative v. liberal thing--it's a money-management thing.

The key here is that the family didn't have the wherewithal or ability or desire (who knows what the deal was, there) to support Edith or to assist with her care in a nursing home, and Edith didn't have enough cash to support herself. The cash needs to come from somewhere. This is how it typically happens. The only thing different is that the "stuff" being sold is a bit more interesting.

If it were a collection of ugly-but-valuable paintings, or a stamp collection, or whatever, the state would still be auctioning the stuff off.

Charlie, Edith's husband, ,should have done a better job on HIS will, or parted with his things when he was still above ground--that would have solved this issue.

[du_grad]

20. When you go onto Medicaid...

...the state has a right to try to get back anything they can after death to reimburse them for care. My mother is currently on Medicaid. Most of her monthly income goes to the nursing home she is living in. I am her durable power-of-attorney so I handle all of her financial stuff.

She did not own any real estate and her income was low enough to qualify her. If you try to ditch property so that the state can support you in your old age, it is much more difficult to do now, as the state of Ohio has a five year look-back. I wouldn't be surprised if this length of time increases with all of the boomers heading into their old age.

It has nothing to do with conservative vs. liberal; it has to do with inheritance laws. If the man died and left everything via his will to his second wife, and she later died before disposing of it by either selling it or giving it away, all of this stuff becomes HER estate and, as such, the state can try to auction it off to recoup the costs of caring for her in a nursing facility.

The "private pay" price per DAY for the home my mother is living in is around $230!! For 30 days that comes out to $6,900 a MONTH! That only covers the basic cost of living there and does NOT include pharmacy, lab, etc. etc.

My husband and I took out Long Term Care Insurance over 15 years ago. Medicare will NOT cover anything but skilled care, and only for a short time. If you go into "rehab" and you don't "make progress" with your rehab, then rehab will stop and you will become a custodial patient, not a "skilled care" patient. Then, unless you have LTC insurance or are on Medicaid, you have to use what resources you can cash out to pay for these stunningly high nursing home bills.

To qualify for Medicaid, you cannot have more than $1,500 worth of assets. Any life insurance policies must be signed over irrevocably to the funeral home of your choice to pay for your funeral. I believe if there is a spouse involved, they will allow you your house, if you own one, and one car. If there is only one person, then all of the assets must be liquidated before one can qualify for Medicaid. My mother had three $500 US savings bonds - they were her only "asset" left. We cashed them out and she bought new dentures with them as she could not keep them and qualify for Medicaid. She was able to live in an apartment for two years with help coming in (through the PASSPORT program from the state of Ohio) to help her every morning for two hours before she ended up in the nursing home a year ago February after throwing a clot to her lung. She was too frail to live by herself any more.

There's a LOT to think about when you start getting old...

[marble falls]

24. When it started it only went after a home. People would put their homes ....

up against their treatment. Now the sherif will not only auction the house, they'll garage sale the contents. This is all so wrong.

[schmice]

17. Lots of neo-Nazis live in Idaho. They don't love or honor this country. Not surprised at this.

[kestrel91316]

18. Well this is what happens in a state that elects government

officials who want to run government like a business. The ONLY consideration is the bottom line.

[baldguy]

19. +1000

When healthcare is not considered a civil right and is instead treated exclusively as a business transaction, human lives become commodities. Forcing people to choose between their lives and their family heirlooms is a particularly sinister form of extortion.

[freshwest]

22. You two got the point that was missed here. It's not dishonoring one particular part of society.

It's dishonoring all of society since Nixon began 'the government should be run like a business' mantra that's never gone away. With a fully funded national health care system, these kinds of bargains would not have to be made.

Blaming the whole government is attacking the few remaining shreds of a social safety net that is left to the indigent, Medicaid. Methinks there is a lot more to this than reported.

The stink being made is an emotional one and a typical RW smear against an agency constrained by conservative ideology. They are forced to manage the state coffers in this medieval fashion because the rich in Idaho.. and elsewhere... didn't fund this man's military retirement and made onerous rules for reimbursement. And you can bet they didn't want to pay state taxes, etc.

When the Democrats had more control in my state, prior to the Bush years, they didn't go after everyone like this; they also didn't deny services. In this arena, those who realize the humanity of a social democracy state are being outvoted and now demonized by the media in these cases.

If the family wants to get the relics, some RW demagogue who helped to defund Medicaid can supply the cash. There is nothing the state can do but follow the rules their GOP legislators set the state Medicaid program to pay for itself.

These people needed state help in the last years of their lives and they got it. That is the big fact that is totally being ignored here.

Progressives who fight day in and day out to maintain the safety net get no respect at all. This kind of abuse comes from the same guys that want Medicaid, Medicare, SS, the VA hospitals and public services to go away all together.

People wonder why Democrats, who support public services, many of them public employees without the right to defend themselves in the media, feel that their belief in a compassionate system are no longer of any value to voters.

[Marthe48]

21. Federal Govt 1993 Medicaid Estate Recovery Mandate--link

From 1965, the beginning of Medicaid, states were allowed to recover costs from estates, if certain conditions were met. Only 12 states had recovery programs in place. In 1993, an updated mandate required all states to have a Medicaid recovery program:

http://aspe.hhs.gov/daltcp/reports/estaterec.htm

Freedom isn't free, nor evidently is humane care of the indigent elderly.

There are things you can do, depending on where you live. If you have property you want your kids to have, you can look into a life estate, or quit claim, or put it into their name when you feel the time is right and you can trust your kids to do right by you.
Give them the family treasures. I ended up with family heirlooms and when they visit, I encourage the next generation to tag or take the things they want. I think that things like the veteran's collection will be personally meaningful only to relatives who knew Col. Sawyer or the son or uncle and after that meaningful to collectors, and finally, someday, to museums.

[du_grad]

26. There is an extensive look-back period

If you are going to do things to your estate so that the state can't get at it, you need to do it sooner rather than later. The state has the right to a look-back period and if it looks like you're unloading right before a big expense that could put you in a nursing home, the state can go after you and they will.

Somebody has to pay. I have no problems with this.

[CBGLuthier]

27. Sounds more like a family dispute than bad old government story

Thirty years of opportunity to get the stuff from his second wife.

[MADem]

30. +1,000 nt