1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32 | [CONTINUED FROM LIC 9099] The available records and interviews showed: According to R1’s Admissions Agreement, R1 moved into the facility in September 2024, and R1’s monthly rent was payable to Licensee on the 1st day of each month. Beginning November 2025, R1 stopped making rent payments to Licensee. (R1 still had a past-due balance owed to Licensee as of the filing of this complaint.) Licensee subsequently issued a 30-day-notice / eviction letter to R1. This letter was dated 11/01/2025 and stated that R1 was required to vacate the premises no later than 11/30/2025. However, CCR 87224(a)(1) states that a Licensee may not initiate an eviction action against a resident until there is a balance owed that is more than ten (10) days past due; it was therefore incorrect to date the letter 11/01/2025. Interviews showed that Licensee in practice did not serve this eviction letter to R1’s acting representative until 11/12/2025. The Department also found that the letter did not contain other elements required by law (which will be addressed in a separate Case Management visit report). The totality of available evidence showed that the eviction letter which Licensee served to R1 during November 2025 was invalid.
Interviews further showed: On 01/14/2026, R1 was transported from the facility to a hospital emergency room. Hospital staff medically evaluated R1 and determined that R1 was safe and ready to be discharged back to the facility, the same day. However, Licensee told hospital staff that they refused to accept R1 back to the facility, and that R1’s room (still with R1’s personal belongings in it) was no longer reserved for R1. The evidence shows that Licensee, in practice, physically evicted R1 from their facility, against R1’s will, without following the legal process. According to HSC 1569.683(a)(4), “In order to evict a resident who remains in the facility after the effective date of the eviction, the residential care facility for the elderly must file an unlawful detainer action in superior court and receive a written judgment signed by a judge,” and said resident must be served with the summons and complaint.
Based on records and interviews, a preponderance of evidence exists to show that Licensee unlawfully evicted R1. The allegation is therefore Substantiated, and one (1) deficiency was cited for it per California Code of Regulations, Title 22 (refer to the attached LIC 9099-D page). A Plan of Correction was jointly developed with the Licensee.
An exit interview was conducted with Licensee/Administrator Dawn Sasso-Toth and House Manager Melissa Cherry, to whom a copy of this report, the LIC 809-D page, and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided. |