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."
So, in 2020 when CA governor gave China $1 billion to provide PPE, and California got nothing, you think China was right to do that?
Before we go into outrage mode, we all need to know the terms of the contract.
It’s hard to believe you pay a lump sum and then never have to pay rent again. Is there a life insurance policy involved?
Without knowing details, it’s hard to comment. I know the reason for this story is to generate outrage that an old woman can be evicted. But what are the facts and contract terms?
I am not sure what that situation has to do with this.
I think any honest court would agree.
If there is no appeal or redress information in the letter, then that’s a problem. Also, 3 days notice sounds way out of bounds. 30 days, minimum. In reality, it would take much longer if the resident failed to comply within 30 days.
I've heard of many facilities that have this model, so I don't know why it's hard to believe. I've also heard from facilities that have a different business model that criticize them.
Hire the best elder lawyer in the state... then take the facility to the cleaners.
Yes, if the contract has language in her favor then that ought to settle everything. Hopefully the wording in that legal document gives her what she wants.
But this quote from the article: “I don’t care what the legal ramifications are here” certainly makes me think that someone wants to ignore the wording in a legal document and just base everything on how they “feel” about the situation.
“It’s hard to believe you pay a lump sum and then never have to pay rent again.”
In our area (northern CT) we have places like that.
They are upscale and the lump sum is mid to high six figures.
I know someone who offered a “bid” of 300K and they laughed at him and told him to go away.
Can they fix the problem by making sure she is fully vacced?
So it gets more complicated. Apparently the prior owner went bankrupt. When buying a bankrupt company, the new owner generally acquires only the assets but not any liabilities. But I have seen claims that the new owner specifically agreed to honor all prior contracts with residents as a condition of the bankruptcy sale. It is hard to say what is actually true with these stories. Either way, it sucks.
But why do they even have the right to change the contract? If so, shouldn’t they refund the money?
> they had to agree all their estate went to the facility <
I’m getting older, so I’m looking into these retirement places. Not for right now, but for maybe five years down the road.
I didn’t fill out any forms, but I did look them over. They wanted a complete list of all my assets: stocks, bonds, etc. I would not have to surrender those assets if I entered the facility.
But I would have to use them to help pay for my care if my monthly income could no longer pay for my room. Then when all my assets were gone, the “free care” would kick in.
That’s not unreasonable.
Disclaimer: I have no idea if this is standard practice. It’s just what I was told at that particular residence.
“I think any honest court would agree.”
And there’s the rub — any court is only as honest as those sitting at the bench & recent events in multiple arenas cause me to question that.
I remember the Detroit lady being thrown out of her house for not making the mortgage payment. She said she had been paying on the house for 47 years.
Of course, there is such a thing as PR. If you try to convince elderly people to give you their money, because you care, this may not be so good.
People feel cheated when they buy an annuity and then find out they have a month to live the next month.
I know the Masonic Home in Wallingford, CT does that as well. A couple I have known forever both lived into their 90s, spending over 20 years in a nice apt. She got ALS, so ultimateky became very highmaintenance. When the 800K ran out they were expected to apply for public assistance ( which they got [eldest son did leg work]). The level of care did not go down.
Or possibly, it isn’t clear, gave it all to the facility in a contractural agreement for Lifetime Care. If so— then a fairly decent lawyer could take this place to the cleaners. Breach of Contract damaging to an individual of a major demographic group. Quite against the law.
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.