Posted on 08/27/2024 10:09:22 AM PDT by nickcarraway
As Jean Jacques celebrated her 96th birthday in July, she never considered that just one month later, she would be advocating for the roof over her head.
Jacques has called Pacific Grove Senior Living her home for 22 years. On Aug. 16, the facility gave Jacques a three-day eviction notice. The notice states that Jacques must pay her outstanding balance of about $110,000 or vacate her unit.
Advertisement The issue? It was Jacques' understanding that she would be taken care of for life — regardless of whether she outlived her savings.
The eviction notice was issued by Pacifica Senior Living, the parent company for Pacific Grove Senior Living. When Pacifica acquired the facility from California-Nevada Methodist Homes in 2022, there was an expectation that existing contracts would be honored.
Though the previous owner's contracts were grandfathered in, their policies were not.
President of Pacific Grove Senior Living's Residents' Association, Bob Sadler, says that contracts for "lifetime care" like the one Jacques signed were considered unconditional under the previous owners.
Because some residents pass away before their contract finishes, evictions were not issued to those who outlived their savings, per Sadler. With this in mind, Jacques says the eviction notice came as a surprise.
Recommended Mariah Carey's mother and sister died on the same day. The singer says her 'heart is broken' The wording of the notice itself has come into question as well.
Elizabeth Campos, ombudsman project manager at the Alliance for Aging, says the notice was not approved by Community Care Licensing. Additionally, the notice did not include instructions on how to appeal.
"You do get angry knowing that it's an elderly person," Campos said. "Where is this person going to go?"
"She's devoted all of her savings and money to this place," Sadler said. "I don't care what the legal ramifications are here. This is morally unthinkable."
Jacques has not been contacted by the facility's business office since receiving the eviction notice. Attempts to contact the office by the Alliance for Aging and the Residents' Committee have received no reply. KSBW also reached out to the office without reply.
"I'm not going. They'll have to bury me because I have no place to go," Jacques said. "They have all my money."
This is so screwed up, i just don’t have the words. I actually have the words AND what I would do if this were my grandparents or parents, but no way will i post it.
The resident says the facility has all her money. It’s not her money any longer. It became the facility’s money as she exchanged it over time for living accommodations.
I have no idea what this “lifetime care” clause in the contract is about. I’d have to see the full language in context.
They have an expensive facility in my town, and I know for a fact, they tell people they are obligated to continue taking care of them, even if they go broke. And by the way, the facility gets to keep the huge deposit if they, "die early." Isn't a contract a contract?
What was in the fine-print of the contract? One would assume debts/liabilities of one company become the same debts and liabilities of the new owner, but who knows the legal details? Moreover, she now needs a strong lawyer who will go to bat for her.
Everyone needs to remember, America is both a "rule of law" society, and also a "lawfare" society. Its increasingly the latter.
I do not want to be unsympathetic, but this seems to lean toward "To each according to their need, from each according to their ability to pay". We really don't want to keep going down that road.
Well, that's not how this works.
> contracts for “lifetime care” like the one Jacques signed were considered unconditional under the previous owners <
Most of these contracts require the resident to sign over large sums of money in return for the lifetime care guarantee. Sometimes it’s all their money. So, yeah. That really is a contract, as both sides gave up something of value.
I can’t see how changing the owners would matter in the least.
And as a side note, just when I get comfortable hating lawyers along comes a story like this. I hope the lady gets a good lawyer.
...but give illegal immigrants 30k
Why isn’t this how it works? They can just unilaterally change the contract after the fact. I’ve seen such places that do promise care for life.
When you buy a company you buy their dents and obligations as well........
I have seen these “lifetime guarantee” arrangements before—and they generally work out fine for everyone.
The incentive structure gets me kinda nervous—I don’t like the idea of making some big corporation highly motivated to want me dead.
:-)
Actually, I remember someone a number of years ago, that went into a facility, and they had to agree all their estate went to the facility, and their family inherited nothing.
The entire story is based on the lady having an “understanding”... show me the contract.
“Everyone needs to remember, America is both a “rule of law” society, and also a “lawfare” society. Its increasingly the latter.”
***********
Its becoming a Golden Rule society. Those with the gold make the rules.
I know someone going thru this with her mother right now. Sounds like the same thing - paid a hefty move-in fee and monthly rent with the promise of care “for life”. Then new ownership took over and has said “wellll, maybe not exactly.”
Any kind of “deposit” is normally referred to as a “Community Fee” that is a one-time charge at move-in. A portion of that is refundable during the first 90 days as defined by California law. But she’s been there 22 years. No refund of this “deposit” is applicable.
That would frighten me
It then becomes the owners' economic incentive to have me live as short a life as possible.
If her contract includes a clause that she gets continued care even when her money runs out (a BIG if), then this is more of a Darth Vaderish “I have altered the deal. Pray that I do not alter it further.”
The company appears to have broken the law by not informing her of how to appeal the short-notice eviction. I suspect that there are more little details being shredded.
However, if the contract does not say what she claims, then the company may be mosty within their rights. (The lack of appeal information is an example of where I believe they overstepped.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.