Nursing Homes Oust Unwanted Patients With Claims of Psychosis

Life Care Center of Plainwell, Mich., which sent a resident to a psychiatric hospital this year.Credit...Nick Hagen for The New York Times

By Jessica Silver-Greenberg and Rachel Abrams

 

In a New York nursing home, a resident hurled a bingo chip. At a home in Georgia, a 46-year-old woman, paralyzed from the waist down, repeatedly complained that no one had changed her diaper. In a California facility, a patient threw tableware.

In all three cases, the nursing homes cited the incidents as a reason to send the residents to hospitals for psychiatric evaluations — and then to bar them from returning.

Across the United States, nursing homes are looking to get rid of unprofitable patients — primarily those who are poor and require extra care — and pouncing on minor outbursts to justify evicting them to emergency rooms or psychiatric hospitals. After the hospitals discharge the patients, often in a matter of hours, the nursing homes refuse them re-entry, according to court filings, government-funded watchdogs in 16 states, and more than 60 lawyers, nursing home employees and doctors.

The practice at times violates federal laws that restrict nursing homes from abruptly evicting patients. 

“Even before the pandemic, there was tremendous pressure to get rid of Medicaid patients, especially those that need high levels of staffing,” said Mike Wasserman, a former chief executive of Rockport Healthcare Services, which manages California’s largest chain of for-profit nursing homes. “The pandemic has basically supercharged that.” He said homes often take advantage of fits of anger to oust patients, claiming they need psychiatric care.

About 70 percent of American nursing homes are for profit. The most lucrative patients are those on short-term rehabilitation stints paid for by private insurers or Medicare, the federal program that insures seniors and people with disabilities. Poor people on longer-term stays are covered by Medicaid, which reimburses nursing homes at a much lower rate than Medicare.

The financial incentive to have more Medicare or privately insured patients, and fewer on Medicaid, becomes more pronounced when the Medicaid patients have illnesses, like dementia, that require extra care from staff.

Nursing homes have faced acute staff shortages as the coronavirus has left employees sick or afraid to go in to work. Workers said they faced increased pressure from their employers during the pandemic to get rid of the most expensive, least lucrative patients.

Invoking psychiatric problems is a popular tool. Nursing homes routinely admit patients with dementia, Alzheimer’s or similar illnesses, and angry outbursts are common.

Evon Smith with the memorial book of her mother, Joan Rivers.Credit...Alexis Hunley for The New York Times

In March, the Rehabilitation Center of Santa Monica, Calif., sent Joan Rivers, who suffered from dementia and was on Medicaid, to the emergency room at USC Verdugo Hills Hospital. The nursing home’s staff said Ms. Rivers, 87, had tossed aside her chair, scaring other residents, according to her daughter, Evon Smith, and a government-funded watchdog.

Within 24 hours, the hospital cleared her for discharge.

Ms. Smith said that she had repeatedly asked the Rehabilitation Center to take her mother back, but that it had refused. A social worker at Verdugo Hills said she, too, had tried unsuccessfully to get the nursing home to readmit Ms. Rivers.

Linda Taetz, the chief compliance officer at Mariner Health Care, which operates the Rehabilitation Center and 19 other nursing homes in California, said the center hadn’t known that Ms. Rivers wanted to return.

Ms. Rivers eventually was admitted to the Colonial Care Center nursing home in Long Beach, Calif. There, she contracted Covid-19. She died on July 20.

Federal law requires nursing homes to follow strict guidelines when they intend to evict someone: They must give 30 days’ notice and come up with a plan to transfer the resident to a facility that can meet his or her needs. If a resident goes to a hospital, the facility must hold the bed for a week.

But nursing homes frequently flout these rules, according to employees and state-funded ombudsmen who help oversee the industry. The New York Times reported in July that nursing homes were evicting an increasing number of low-income — and therefore low-profitability — residents into homeless shelters and run-down motels, apparently in violation of federal law.

There is no national data on nursing home evictions. The Times contacted ombudsmen in all 50 states. 

 

Some said they had not seen nursing homes dumping patients in hospitals during the pandemic. But in 16 states, including California, Texas and New York, ombudsmen said the problem was continuing. Some said they believed it was getting worse.

“We have been seeing these kinds of illegal discharges all the time, because nursing homes seem to have figured out that they will rarely, if ever, be penalized,” said Alison Hirschel, senior legal counsel to the Michigan ombudsman program. “It’s devastating for residents and their families all the time, but especially horrible and dangerous during a pandemic.” 

 

Ms. Rivers contracted Covid-19 while staying at the Colonial Care Center in Long Beach, Calif.Credit...Alexis Hunley for The New York Times

Medicaid patients who require lots of staff attention “have a target on their back,” she said.

The problem predates the pandemic.

 

Gloria Single was a resident of the Pioneer House nursing home in Sacramento. She had dementia and pulmonary disease and was on California’s version of Medicaid. Pioneer House was receiving about $400 a day for her care.

In 2017, Ms. Single got upset and threw utensils, according to a lawsuit against Pioneer House filed in state court by Ms. Single’s lawyer. The nursing home called 911, and Ms. Single was taken to a hospital for an involuntary psychiatric hold, in which patients are held until they are determined not to be a danger to themselves or others. The hospital determined later that day that there was nothing wrong with Ms. Single aside from her pre-existing dementia.

But Pioneer House would not let her return. The California Department of Health Care Services concluded that Pioneer House had violated the law and ordered it to let her go back. The home still refused. After about five months at the hospital, Ms. Single was moved to another nursing home. She died last year.

 

“You can get $1,000 extra a day by getting rid of the Gloria Singles of the world and replacing them with someone on Medicare,” said Matthew Borden, Ms. Single’s lawyer.

John Supple, a lawyer for the Retirement Housing Foundation, which operates Pioneer House, said that its medical director had deemed the home unsuitable for Ms. Single’s medical needs and that Pioneer House had never received the medical records it needed to readmit her. (Ms. Single’s lawyer disputes that. The lawsuit is ongoing.) Mr. Supple said Pioneer House had held Ms. Single’s bed for months and had not replaced her with a Medicare patient.

During the pandemic, nursing homes in Illinois and Michigan have repeatedly sent elderly and disabled Medicaid patients to NeuroBehavioral Hospital in Crown Point, Ind., said Kimberly Jackson, a discharge planner at the psychiatric hospital. In one case, a resident who yelled at a staff member was branded as being violent and having a psychotic break.

“The homes seem to be purposely taking symptoms of dementia as evidence of psychosis,” Ms. Jackson said. (Christy Gilbert, the chief operating officer of the hospital’s parent company, said instances when nursing homes dumped patients in her company’s hospitals were “very few and far between.”)

In June, Life Care Center of Plainwell, Mich., sent Nicki Safapour, a Medicaid patient who needs a wheelchair, to NeuroBehavioral Hospital. Because of a developmental disability, Mr. Safapour, 55, has the mental capacity of a 5-year-old, according to his brother John, who is his legal guardian. He said Life Care had told him that Mr. Safapour assaulted an employee and another resident.

 

A state health inspector later determined that the discharge was illegal, according to a copy of the inspector’s report reviewed by The Times.

“It seemed like they were just trying to get rid of Nicki,” John Safapour said. “He took up a lot of staff time.”

A spokesman for Life Care, Davis Lundy, said that privacy rules prohibited him from discussing Mr. Safapour’s case, but that Life Care had a significant number of residents on Medicaid and that “we never discharge patients based on their payer source.”

Nicki Safapour, as his wheelchair was strapped into a van, was illegally evicted from a nursing home in June, a government agency found.Credit...Nick Hagen for The New York Times

The families of some evicted patients have had to take them into their homes, although they lack the training or equipment to care for them.

In June, Connie Rodina got a phone call from the Richmond Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center in Richmond, Kan. Her 63-year-old brother, Jon Fowler, who suffers from mental illness and dementia, had hit another resident. Ms. Rodina, her brother’s guardian, was told that she needed to pick him up immediately.

By the time Ms. Rodina arrived, Mr. Fowler was already being transported to an emergency room. The hospital was ready to discharge him a couple of days later, after treating him for a urinary tract infection. Ms. Rodina said Richmond Healthcare wouldn’t take him back.

 

“You can’t just put somebody out like that,” said Camille Russell, a regional ombudsman who filed a complaint against the facility with the Kansas Department for Aging and Disability Services. The complaint is pending, she said.

Ms. Rodina couldn’t find another nursing home that would admit Mr. Fowler, who needs near-constant care. After her brother had been in the hospital for weeks, she reluctantly moved him into her home.

“It’s basically taken my life away from me,” Ms. Rodina said. “It’s impossible for me to care for him.”

Representatives of Richmond Healthcare didn’t respond to requests for comment.

In some cases, nursing homes have ignored orders from regulators to take back patients they sent to emergency rooms or psychiatric hospitals.

Charles Borden, a stroke victim with dementia, had been staying at the skilled nursing facility at Tahoe Forest Hospital in Truckee, Calif. Medicaid was covering his long-term stay. But in April, after Mr. Borden elbowed a nursing assistant and cursed at her, the nursing home sent him to the hospital’s emergency room for a psychiatric evaluation.

Within hours, the emergency room cleared Mr. Borden to return to the nursing home. But it wouldn’t take him back, according to court records. (While the nursing home and the main Tahoe Forest hospital share a campus and are owned by the same organization, the nursing home is financially independent from the hospital.)

 

Later that day, the nursing home dropped off all of Mr. Borden’s possessions at the E.R. and moved another resident into the room that Mr. Borden had shared with his wife, Beverly.

Two days later, on April 22, Mr. Borden’s son appealed the decision to California’s health care agency. It determined that the nursing home was legally required to take Mr. Borden back. The nursing home refused.

The state agency said it had no authority to force the nursing home to let Mr. Borden return, aside from fining it $50 for every day it refused.

Matt Mushet, a lawyer for the nursing home, said it “is committed to the optimal safety of all patients and team members.” He said that he couldn’t comment on Mr. Borden’s case but that “it’s important for the public to understand there is more than one side to this story.”

Mr. Borden has spent the past five months marooned in the hospital. His dementia makes it hard for him to understand what is going on, his son said, but Mr. Borden asks every day to see his wife.

 

Full Article & Source:

Nursing Homes Oust Unwanted Patients With Claims of Psychosis

Disabled Veteran Gets Ultimatum – Get Rid Of His PTSD Support Dog or Get Evicted

By Monica P

Many war veterans experience difficulties getting used to the life they had in their home country. Sadly, some of them suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and need the help of service dogs to cope with the state of desperation they find themselves trapped in.

Willie Williams is a 73-year-old veteran who served in the Vietnam war. Currently, he resides at the Freedom’s Path on the Chillicothe VA Medical Center campus in Ohio. But as it turns out this place isn’t really pet friendly.

Just recently, Willie got an anonymous letter that turned his world upside down. Using some harsh words, he was threatened to leave the place.

“Willie, it’s time for you and your dog to go. You will no longer be tolerated. Move out.”

But it didn’t stop there. Shortly after, the campus authorities sent him an official letter asking from him to choose between his service dog Diamond, or his apartment.

Apparently, someone saw Diamond walking inside the campus without her leash, which Willie says was just a one-time occurrence.

Struggling with depression, loneliness, and isolation, Diamond is his only friend and companion and he can’t imagine his life without her.

Without seeing a way out from the unenviable situation, Willie turned to the media for help. But the campus’ lawyer was straightforward regarding this veteran’s case. Unless he gets rid of Diamond, he can no longer stay in the campus.

As he isn’t planning on abandoning his loving dog, Willie faces homelessness in the weeks to come.

“This is not a spot and place I want to be in right now in my life. Like I said, at my age, I don’t know how much time I got. All I want to do is live and let live”, he said in a heartbreaking statement.

Please take a minute of your time to share Willie’s plea for help. Let’s spread the word and demand fair treatment for both him and Diamond.

Full Article & Source:
Disabled Veteran Gets Ultimatum – Get Rid Of His PTSD Support Dog or Get Evicted

American Bar Assn. President Criticizes U.S. Legal System As Backward, Resistant to Change

by Patricia Barnes

Judy Perry Martinez, president of the American Bar Association (ABA), has issued an unusually frank plea calling upon the legal profession to support reform of America’s backward legal system to better serve the public.

“We need new ideas,” said Martinez. “We are one-fifth into the 21st century, yet we continue to rely on 20th-century processes, procedures and regulations. We need to retain 20th-century values but advance them using 21st-century approaches that can increase access to justice.”

Martinez’ comments are contained in a letter appearing in the February-March 2020 issue of the ABA’s monthly magazine, The ABA Journal.

Martinez expressed frustration with resistance in the legal profession to state-level efforts to innovate in the provision of legal services.

It may be no coincidence that the California Judicial Council last fall rejected proposals to permit “educated technicians” without law degrees to offer limited legal services and to allow non-attorneys to have an ownership stake in law firms.

Martinez said the aim of reform is not to eliminate lawyers but to “help lawyers lead changes that are sweeping all economic sectors of society.”  She said states should serve in the role the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis described as “laboratories of democracy.”

D-Minus

Martinez was particularly critical of the lack of access to civil justice in the United States.

She cited the World Justice Project’s ranking of the U.S. in the bottom tier with respect to access to and affordability of civil justice. She said the U.S. is tied for 99th place out of 126 countries.

Additionally, Martinez said research by the Legal Services Corp. found that low-income Americans received inadequate or no professional legal help for 86% of their civil legal problems, including child custody, debt collection, eviction and foreclosure.

She did not spare the criminal justice system. In many states, Martinez says, “overwhelming caseloads and inadequate resources for public defenders severely hamper the Sixth Amendment right to counsel for indigent criminal defendants.

Protectionism?

Martinez indirectly raised the issue of protectionism. She notes lawyers have the “privilege” of regulating their own profession. With privilege, she says, comes responsibility to ensure that the rules and regulations of the legal profession serve the public good.

“The ultimate purpose of regulation is not to protect the livelihoods of lawyers but to advance the administration of justice,” said Martinez. “Some would suggest that if we don’t have justice or public protection as our goal, we potentially put our self-regulation at risk.”

The ultimate purpose of regulation is not to protect the livelihoods of lawyers but to advance the administration of justice.”

American Bar Association President Judy Perry Martinez

Martinez acknowledged that “change is difficult …. But given the dire circumstances that the public faces when trying to protect their basic rights, doing nothing poses an even greater risk to our system of justice and the rule of law.”

Last fall, Forbes wrote about the ABA’s 11^th annual “Celebrate Pro Bono” week, in which it urged lawyers to volunteer to represent victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. These victims, mostly women, regularly go to court without an attorney to seek civil restraining orders to protect themselves and their children, and to fight for child custody, child support and to stay in their homes.

In her letter, Martinez writes: “Though lawyers donate countless hours to help, pro bono cannot fully address the unmet legal needs in our country.”

Another area where poor people increasingly face injustice involves eviction due to rising rents and low wages, a problem that is particularly devastating to families with children. The National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel reports that five cities, most recently Philadelphia, have adopted measures to provide a right to counsel for tenants facing eviction.

Forbes also wrote about the plight of employment discrimination victims who cannot afford to hire an attorney and are required to follow obtuse rules that are unintelligible to the vast majority of non-lawyers and many lawyers.

Martinez’ letter ran under the headline: “We must not squander the future of legal services”

Full Article & Source:
American Bar Assn. President Criticizes U.S. Legal System As Backward, Resistant to Change

“Guardianship” Often Fails Poor Seniors. Is There a Different Way?

By Michelle Chen 

When Patricia Cassidy was at her lowest point, she had just been evicted, was overwhelmed with mounting medical bills, and was suffering from a traumatic brain injury that left her emotionally unable to cope with everyday tasks. Then her despair turned to fear as she found herself before a local judge, who mandated that she would have to cede control over her financial and medical affairs to a guardian — an organization that the court would task with managing many components of her life on her behalf.

“I went to the hearing, and it was very, very scary for me,” she recalled in a recent interview. At the time, her therapist and rheumatologist had petitioned the court to place her in a special public guardianship program for people without other means of support from family or friends. But Cassidy, a 59-year-old domestic abuse survivor facing several chronic ailments, feared losing her independence. “I was afraid of guardians,” she said. “I felt that they were going to come in and take over my life and take over everything I had and get rid of it all.”

Five years later, Cassidy said that what she most feared about guardianship — losing control — hasn’t happened. Instead, she’s stayed independent, living in a Brooklyn apartment her case worker helped secure. She now sees her guardianship, administered by the nonprofit advocacy group Vera Institute of Justice, as “just a part of my life.” But her program is part of a small, unconventional support network for extremely vulnerable seniors that aims to safeguard their lives without taking them over. For hundreds of thousands of other seniors, guardianship is an ethical gray zone, operating at the heart of a question that increasingly haunts an aging nation: When am I no longer able to care for myself?

Aging Gaps

Guardianship is one of the most ethically fraught aspects of the elder care system, hinging on the most sensitive questions about personal liberty, medical responsibility and kinship. And it all starts, for better or worse, with a judge’s decree. A court appoints a guardian when a senior is deemed unable to live independently, usually after a hearing process that reviews an individual’s medical needs or physical, intellectual, mental or psychological disabilities, and determines that guardianship is appropriate. Similar to adoption, the guardian is in most cases a relative or friend who petitions for them. But people with fewer resources might end up in the care of a public or private agency, which is tasked with managing issues like medical treatment, financial planning and end-of-life care.

Overall, about 1.5 million people nationwide are in some form of guardianship, more than three-quarters of them involving a relative. Seniors without friends or relatives who are willing to help manage their affairs may enter the care of a private guardian (who is generally arranged by family or friends and compensated directly), if they have the financial resources to do so. Elderly people who don’t have enough funds to finance their own guardians can enter a separate system known as public or community guardianship, provided by a nonprofit or government agency. But as a whole, court-appointed guardianships lack central regulation or monitoring. Advocates fear that as the Baby Boom generation ages and guardianship becomes more widespread, so will the potential for abuse or neglect.

The Vera Institute’s The Guardianship Project (TGP) is trying to get courts and communities to reimagine guardianship, both through research and advocacy and through running its own guardianship model, which now serves about 180 people across New York, including Cassidy. On a national level, TGP’s research on guardianship programs in several states suggests the system is letting many seniors fall through the cracks: Surveys of judges and other court personnel, along with professional guardians, indicate that many courts are overstretched; there is little monitoring of cases, and judges often lack expertise for handling complex cases of seniors with serious health and economic issues. Meanwhile, court-appointed guardians are in many cases attorneys, who might have no expertise in caregiving, and respondents reported a lack of guardians available with skills like social work and nursing.

“Basically, what the whole story is showing is that there’s a population of elderly, disabled and/or poor people that are largely invisible and largely ignored,” said TGP Director Kimberly George.

Meanwhile, public wariness of guardianship is growing: Media reports and government audits have revealed many cases plagued by dysfunctional bureaucracy and a pattern of elder abuse. In professional private guardianships, which often take in seniors who have some assets to pay for services, scandals have erupted in cases of neglect, exploitation or abuse of elderly people. But the poorest seniors are even more vulnerable, since their fate relies completely on the courts and public welfare systems. Poor, socially isolated seniors with complex care needs often find themselves assigned to a public or community guardian that is financed by public funds, but without adequate resources for care and legal services. According to Peter Strauss, an elder law attorney and professor at New York Law School, when funding is arbitrary and inconsistent, guardians, public or private are frustrated by “underfunding, short staff, and then they get overwhelmed with the number of cases that they can’t handle.”

“There’s a gaping hole in the system for folks who don’t have money, but who need help and don’t have anybody [who] can step in to pay their bills, make health care decisions and the like,” said Bernard Krooks, an elder law attorney who handles guardianship cases in New York. Although public guardianship programs could play a critical role for the most marginalized seniors, Krooks told Truthout, “The reality is, there has not been a funding mechanism in New York State to make this happen.”

Keeping Elders at Home

TGP’s model seeks to serve as a different kind of last resort, aiming to provide intensive services for seniors in economic hardship, with no family or friends available to serve as guardians. Funded by New York’s Office of Court Administration and other public and philanthropic funds, TGP serves clients across a range of settings, including residential care facilities, but aims to keep clients in their communities. Each client with a “wraparound team” that includes lawyers and other support staff, with specialists in managing public benefits, finances and housing. About half of the clients live at or below the federal poverty line, and half are people of color. About 60 percent of clients are living in their communities, while others live in residential institutions like nursing homes.

TGP’s multidisciplinary program intends to knit together different strands of the social infrastructure to help people avoid nursing homes and jails. If a client with mental health problems suffers a breakdown and gets arrested, TGP can provide legal representation to secure their release from jail and help connect them to a long-term treatment program that fits their needs. TGP can also support undocumented seniors by helping them obtain medical care and other services while avoiding immigration authorities and federal law that curtails non-citizens’ access to aid.

Until recently, Cassidy hardly fit the stereotype of an “incapacitated” elder. Earlier in her life, she had worked in public relation and museum curation, but over the years, her health deteriorated due to various chronic ailments and domestic abuse. Then in her mid-fifties, she was living on her own — just not very well. Her brain injury often triggered emotional outbursts; basic tasks like a visit to the bank could spiral into an angry breakdown. “I was very overwhelmed, and then therefore not able to even operate on the simplest level,” she said. Cassidy’s vulnerability was aggravated by estrangement from family members. “It was like I became an orphan at 50,” she said.

Her therapist and rheumatologist encouraged her to enter into the guardianship as a way of getting her life under control. A TGP case worker and other staff have helped her sort out her finances and secure a new apartment with a special housing subsidy based on her medical condition. While Cassidy is capable of making her own treatment decisions, her guardian also acts as an interlocutor. A conversation with a doctor can leave her “mentally fatigued,” she adds, but TGP staff “are there with me, and they’re talking to the doctor … then afterwards if they need to, [they] explain it to me five times — the doctor is not going to explain anything to you five times — [so that] I’m sure that it’s a good decision that’s being made.”

TGP works with individuals in residential institutions, but also helps them move back into their communities whenever possible. As the report explains, many clients become “stuck” in the medical system, “languishing needlessly in a hospital or nursing home,” unable to be discharged “because no one will take on the challenges of transitioning him or her back to their homes or to a less-restrictive setting with proper oversight.” Many guardians, George said, particularly those ill-prepared to deal with complex, high-needs clients, might be tempted to place a senior in a nursing home as an “easier” solution — eliminating the need for the guardian to worry about housing, food or managing the client’s bills.

When TGP steps in, the team prepares for a client’s return home by taking care of tasks like settling rent arrears with the landlord, or planning end-of-life care — services that the client would never be able to arrange while bedridden in a crowded rehab center. If a client’s condition deteriorates to the point that some form of institutionalization, such as placement in a nursing home, appears necessary, TGP would work to place them in the least restrictive setting, according to the study, perhaps seeking out a local facility “with staff who speak a client’s primary language and access to religious services and culturally familiar foods.”

Despite its personalized approach, a recent cost-analysis found that TGP’s budget saved its roughly 160 to 180 clients collectively about $3 million in annual Medicaid costs, primarily by avoiding placements in nursing homes.

The Vera Institute’s study suggests other counties and states can use a similar holistic approach to public guardianship. On the policy level, TGP’s study calls for an expansion of public guardianship nationwide — with additional funding, comprehensive monitoring of guardians and service providers, and enhanced regulatory standards, including a commitment to placing people in the least restrictive setting, and a staff-client ratio of 1 to 20 to ensure adequate resources and oversight. Overall, a more human-centered public guardianship program could enable the most vulnerable seniors to live more independently and stay close to their communities.

Safeguarding Elder Rights

Still TGP, with its limited capacity, is not itself a solution for the guardianship crisis. Some disability rights advocates criticize the concept of guardianship in general, viewing it as incompatible with the principle of independent living. They prefer alternative legal arrangements like “supported decision-making,” in which social service providers provide guidance for people on medical and financial decisions while still leaving them legally in charge of their affairs.

Meanwhile, progressive elder law advocates are also gravitating toward alternatives to guardianship that support independence whenever feasible. Alison Herschel, director of Michigan Elder Justice Initiative, says that while guardianship is necessary for some individuals, “we believe there are far too many guardianships and far too many cases that should have been resolved by utilizing less restrictive alternatives.”

The Vera Institute’s study urges court administrators to implement better training so courts can screen cases so people can opt for less restrictive options like supported decision-making. Instead of appointing a guardian for a senior with severe dementia, for example, a judge could arrange for a sibling to gain power of attorney to aid with medical or legal decisions, and provide a home health aide. Even when guardianship is strictly a last resort, the court process can be a framework for meeting a senior’s needs for both care and personal dignity, and providing support without threatening self-determination.

For Cassidy, the TGP guardianship model is not just about getting the right services, but regaining a firm sense of both her abilities and limits. Her guardian hasn’t taken over her life, as she had once feared; instead, it’s a stabilizing presence.

If she ever needs her case worker, she knows who to call. “I carry their card with me all the time.”

Full Article & Source:
“Guardianship” Often Fails Poor Seniors. Is There a Different Way?

Owner of Scottdale care home accused of endangering Vietnam veteran she evicted

The owner of a Scottdale personal care home is accused of reckless endangerment after letting a Vietnam veteran who was evicted from her facility walk to the New Stanton area without checking on him, according to court papers.

County detectives on Wednesday filed charged against Leah C. Ilgenfritz, 79. 

The situation was reported in July to the Westmoreland County Elder Abuse Task Force when the victim, who is in his 60s, was seen wandering around the New Stanton area. Police said the victim has schizophrenia and a diabetic condition. 

When county officials investigating the July 6 report found the victim at a convenience store near New Stanton, he was talking to himself, dressed in dirty clothing and appeared undernourished. A doctor who evaluated him during an involuntary mental health commitment told investigators the victim was “at risk of serious bodily injury or death” if his conditions went untreated, police said in an affidavit. 

Ilgenfritz told police she began in May the process of evicting the man from her Park Avenue facility, where he had been treated since 2015, after he began neglecting his medication and causing problems. 

“Ilgenfritz stated that when (the man’s) erratic behavior didn’t change, she advised him that she would be evicting him from the facility,” Detective Ray Dupilka wrote in the complaint. 

She paid to lodge him for three nights at the Budget Inn Motel in New Stanton about 9 miles away and dropped his belongings and medication off there, police reported. 

He refused to get in her vehicle and left the personal care home on foot. Dupilka said the victim never checked in to the hotel, instead wandering around the area for a few days. 

“Ilgenfritz confirmed that after (the victim) left her facility, she didn’t know if he ever made it to the hotel or received his requisite medication,” Dupilka wrote in the complaint. 

When reached Thursday, Ilgenfritz said the victim had overstayed a 30-day notice to leave her facility. 

“I never put him out,” she said. “He kept packing his bags and saying he was going to a hotel.” 

“There’s a lot more to it than what they’re saying,” she said. 

The personal care home, registered as Leah’s Victorian Cottage with the state, has a capacity of 30 patients. It was last inspected in July. 

The misdemeanor charge is being sent by summons. A Dec. 5 preliminary hearing is set.

Full Article & Source:
Owner of Scottdale care home accused of endangering Vietnam veteran she evicted

96-year-old faces Christmas Eve eviction for recording alleged caregiver neglect

LOS ANGELES -- Sally Kelly is unable go to the bathroom without help. In fact, she needs help with all of her daily needs because she previously had two strokes and two broken hips.

CBS Los Angeles reports a video shows the 96-year-old waiting for help for 58 minutes while needing to go to the bathroom. The video camera stopped recording after about an hour.

Her daughter, Audrey Kelly, says it took more than two hours for a paid caregiver to respond. She says this isn't the only time this has happened.

"Cameras are catching them not coming and performing services," Audrey said.
Another recording, a couple of months later, shows Kelly waiting 38 minutes before the recording stops.

Audrey says her mother mounted visible security cameras in her apartment at City View Villa, which is a senior living facility, for her own safety. She says the video shows her mother is not receiving the desperately needed services that she's paying for.

"Everything from her calling for help and no one coming for hours, prompting me to call several times and they still don't come after I call," Audrey said. "They don't show up for showers 95 percent of the time so I have to do it, they don't show up to dress her in the morning, provide her grooming in the morning."

Audrey says the facility's executive director accused her and her mother of committing a criminal offense by using the cameras and ordered her to take them down. But the LAPD says it's not illegal to use cameras in the privacy of your own home.

What's ironic is that Kelly was a detective for the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department years ago.

Audrey is demanding for her mother's account to be credited for all of the services she has not received. The facility, however, responded by serving her with an eviction notice.

Kelly says she's not backing down.

"We won't get rid of the cameras," she said.

"She's scared, she's upset, rightfully so, she doesn't understand why they wont credit her account when they know she has these cameras that have caught them red-handed and she doesn't understand why on the eve of the holidays would they be so cruel," Audrey said.

Full Article & Source:
96-year-old faces Christmas Eve eviction for recording alleged caregiver neglect

Elderly Couple’s Belongings Left Out In Rain After Eviction

LAUDERHILL (CBSMiami) — James Walker, 78, stepped through the pieces of his life, a scattered mess of personal papers and photographs left behind after he and his wife were evicted from their home of more than 25 years on Thursday.

An elderly couple’s belongings were left out in the rain following an eviction from their home of 25 years. (Source: CBS4)

The eviction came even as Walker was at the courthouse, in a last ditch effort to stave off foreclosure.

“He called me and I told him, ‘I want you to wait because my wife is in there.’ She is in the bed. He went in there and they got my wife out of the bed,” Walker said of the eviction crew.

His wife, 80-year-old Susan Walker, a wheelchair-bound invalid, was hospitalized after the stress of the eviction. Times were good when she was a school bus driver and James drove a truck, but in retirement, their income plummeted to a pittance. They didn’t pay their mortgage for well over a year.

James said the foreclosure process was confusing and the mortgage company didn’t help.

“They never came out, never sent nobody out here personally to talk to me about anything,” Walker said.

The Walkers’ daughter managed to get some of their furniture in storage, but not until after it got rained on after being tossed at the edge of the road way. He is sleeping on a neighbors couch, for the moment, but next week?

“I’m trying to get some help. I would appreciate whatever assistance I can get because I need to get this situation straightened out,” Walker said.

James rode his bicycle Friday to see his wife in the hospital. He will be back to retrieve the family Bible, among items left on the front stoop.

James Walker, 78, walks through an empty home following an eviction in Lauderhill. (Source: CBS4)

The Ocwen mortgage servicing company, which handled the Walker’s loan, issued a statement Friday saying in part, “we made attempts to find a solution for their situation, including exploring various loss mitigation options” but were unable to reach a mutual agreement.

The company says it has amended 740,000 distressed mortgages and taken billions of dollars in losses in order to keep families in their homes.

Anyone who would like to help the Walkers, financially or through other efforts, can do so at www.neighbors4neighbors.org or by calling Neighbors4Neighbors at: (305) 597-4404.

Full Article & Source:
Elderly Couple’s Belongings Left Out In Rain After Eviction

Elderly couple’s eviction from Albion home draws LePage’s ire

Richard and Leonette Sukeforth

Gov. Paul LePage is so angry that an elderly, disabled couple was evicted from their Albion home that he plans to change the law so it never happens again.

The town of Albion foreclosed on the property of Richard and Leonette Sukeforth, both 80 years old, in December 2015 because of nonpayment of taxes. The rundown camp at 180 Marden Shore Road on Lovejoy Pond was sold by the town for $6,500 and the new owner evicted the couple last week.

“I’m livid about it and I think we have to have laws to protect our most vulnerable,” LePage said in an interview with the Morning Sentinel.

LePage said he, personally, tried to help the Sukeforths retain their home and asked Pine Tree Legal to get involved, but the nonprofit organization that provides free legal help to low-income Mainers determined the foreclosure was done legally. However, LePage said he thinks it is immoral that a veteran and his sick, bedridden wife, who are at the end of their lives, were kicked out of their home and he is going to fight to ensure the practice is prohibited in the future.

“I’m going to ask for an ombudsman to mediate disputes between communities and taxpayers, not just elderly,” LePage said Friday. “I want to change the foreclosure law as it relates to poverty, and one of the things I want to do is force them (communities) to sell property at market value and any revenues above taxes and revenue and foreclosure fees go back to the original owner.”

That the governor would be emotionally moved by the Sukeforth case and plan legislation in response is not surprising, said Jim Melcher, a political science professor at the University of Maine at Farmington.

Gov. Paul LePage, angered by the recent home eviction of an elderly Albion couple, has vowed to propose legislation aimed at keeping elderly people in their homes when they face foreclosure. Staff file photo by Andy Molloy

“The governor has always taken a very personal reaction to personal stories,” Melcher said. “And it certainly fits into the way this governor has acted. Emotionally, it’s a heart-tugging, how-can-this-happen kind of thing.”

LePage said most communities, before taking ownership for nonpayment of taxes, will work with an owner who could get a reverse mortgage, or the community could abate the taxes. He said he wants people to be able to stay in their homes and let taxes accrue and when they die, the property would then go to the community.

“What they did is unbelievable. It’s just not the way it’s done,” he said of the town of Albion.
A lawyer in LePage’s office tried to arrange a meeting with the man who bought the Sukeforth home, but the new owner refused to do so unless it occurred in his own lawyer’s office with his lawyer present.

The Sukeforths now are living in a trailer park in Holden with their daughter, Yvette Ingalls, where a nurse comes every day to tend to Leonette, who is a retired nurse herself. She is diabetic, weak and fragile and was in a hospital bed prescribed by her doctor when the eviction took place, according to the Sukeforth family.

Rachel Sukeforth, their daughter-in-law, who lives across the street with their son, Rick, said she and her husband drove her in-laws to Holden in a snowstorm the night they were evicted.

“That deal was very underhanded,” Richard Sukeforth said in a phone interview from Holden. “I don’t care what anybody says. It weren’t right. They came down and evicted us when my wife was right in a hospital bed. We’re both 80 years old, so they done it and got away with it and they’re happy.”

LePage, who was mayor of Waterville before he became Maine’s governor, said while it is legal to foreclose on properties, “most people don’t throw them out for poverty.”

“As mayor of Waterville, whenever we had an issue of poverty, we never threw people out,” he said.

The Sukeforths had lived in the house, which really is a camp, 33 years before they were evicted.

“He’s living in poverty,” LePage said of Richard Sukeforth. “Now, we’re throwing him out on the street. That’s just awful.”

Meanwhile, the Sukeforth’s brown-and-gray dog, Pee-wee, and black cat, Kitty, are temporarily staying with Rick and Rachel Sukeforth, as the trailer park in Holden does not allow dogs.

Rachel Sukeforth said when she lets the animals out, they go across the road and sit on the steps of what once was Richard and Leonette’s house and whimper.

The animals on Wednesday were wandering around that house in the snow. The dog, a 10-year-old Jack Russell terrier, shivered on the ice-covered dirt road.

MAKING PAYMENT

Even as Maine’s governor is voicing outrage over the Sukeforth eviction, town officials said the process to get to that point was legal and that Richard Sukeforth had many chances to prevent it.

Albion Selectwoman Beverly Bradstreet said he owed about $4,000 in taxes on the property, which was taxed at a little under $800 a year, not including interest and lien fees.

The town gave Richard Sukeforth, a National Guard and Marine veteran, every opportunity to pay and even paid his taxes for two years, in 2011 and 2012, out of a special fund the town maintains to help people in need, according to Bradstreet.

Pee-wee the dog, owned by Richard and Leonette Sukeforth, remains

 vigilant Wednesday outside their former home on Lovejoy Pond in Albion.

 The Sukeforths, who are staying in Holden with their daughter, were 

evicted from their home recently after the town foreclosed on it for 

nonpayment of taxes and then sold it by auction. Pee-wee is living 

temporarily with the Sukeforths’ son and daughter-in-law across the road

 from their former home because dogs are not allowed in the trailer park in

 Holden where they are staying. Staff photo by David Leaming

“It’s three years before we foreclose, and we paid his taxes, like two different years to avoid foreclosure; but then he just let it go,” Bradstreet said. “He knew that we were going to do it. He would come in the Town Office, but he did not pay. I don’t know why. He just waited until it was too late. We foreclosed last December, 2015. We gave him six months to still pay it off and he made no effort to pay it off. He didn’t try, and there were other people in town that could use some help, too.”

She said that, had Sukeforth paid his taxes before December 2015, he would have had to pay only one year’s taxes.

But Rachel Sukeforth said the family did not know her father-in-law, who is in an early stage of dementia, did not pay his taxes; in fact, she would ask him if he had gone to the Town Office to pay and he said he had. It was only when the family saw a notice in the newspaper last summer that there was to be an auction on the property that they learned of the foreclosure, she said.

“As soon as we found this out, we called the Town Office,” she said. “My husband and siblings and our neighbor all tried to pay the taxes up to date, and they refused payment. This wasn’t sitting well with any one of us. Every town has the right to refuse payment, but can also accept the payment as well. When we tried to pay selectmen, they said when an auction is posted in the newspaper, they can no longer accept payment, but that wasn’t true.”

LePage said the town at that point could have accepted the payment. “It’s never too late until the deed transfers, and the deed had not transferred,” he said.

Rachel Sukeforth said the family is trying to have her in-laws’ dog designated as a service dog so they can have it at the Holden trailer park. LePage is concerned about the dog, he said.

“If they need a place for the dog to go, I’ll take him,” he said.

He said he is working to help find the Sukeforths a place to live, such as an assisted-living facility.

Richard Sukeforth said he and his wife receive $1,252 a month in Social Security payments. He worked in construction during the summer for many years, operated a snowplow for the Maine Turnpike in winter and later worked for Bath Iron Works until he was injured when he fell off a crane boom in 1982, he said.

He maintained Marden Shore Road for the road association there for 33 years, for no pay, until the association voted in 2015 to pay him $500 a year. He said he misses his home, his dog and his cat and thinks it was wrong for the town to foreclose on his property and sell it.

His daughter, Ingalls, said her parents were told Dec. 29 that if they were not out of the house by midnight, the doors would be locked and a deputy sheriff called. She said they are upset about losing their home.

“They’re beside themselves, as old as they are,” Ingalls said. “Everything they’ve gone through in their whole lives, and they get thrown out like this.”

FORECLOSURE AND EVICTION

LePage learned of the Albion situation when MaryAnn Sawlan-Neiman, who with her husband, Jim, owns a home three properties away from the Sukeforth’s home, contacted the governor’s office for help. Sawlan-Neiman, who lives most of the year in Dracut, Massachusetts, but is also Marden Shore Road Association commissioner, said she did everything she could to help keep the Sukeforths in their home prior to calling LePage’s office.

“It’s just devastating for them,” she said of the couple. “He’s just like a lost man now.”

She said she met the Sukeforths many years ago, as he maintained the private, dirt road for 33 years.
The dead-end road off China Road is six-tenths of a mile long.

“Every day, he would come down, stay a couple of hours, and I’d go to his house. We just became really good friends. Another neighbor told me in July they were going to foreclose for taxes. I went to the town hall and I said, ‘What does he owe? I’ll pay for it right now.'”

She said the town refused payment. She said she told town officials she recognized Sukeforth had dementia because her own mother had had Alzheimer’s disease.

“He is a … vet. There’s just so many reasons this shouldn’t be able to happen,” she said.

After she and Sukeforth met Sept. 7 with LePage, she hoped there would be a positive resolution in the case, but that did not happen.

“I truly believe the governor did everything he could to help,” Sawlan-Neiman said. “He’s actually called me to come testify when the bill is ready. I’m very nervous about doing that because I don’t speak well in front of people, but I don’t want this to happen to anyone else.”

Sawlan-Neiman bid $6,000 for the Sukeforth property in August at the sealed-bid auction. But Jason Marks, an electrician whose father, Winston, owns the property next to Richard and Leonette Sukeforth’s camp, bid $6,500; and as the higher bidder, he was awarded the property.

Jason Marks also owns a home on Marden Shore Road and does electrical work for the town of Albion. Sawlan-Neiman said the relationship between Marks and town officials, who are friendly, raises red flags.

“I can’t help but think that this was a setup so Jason could buy the property,” she said.

Both Marks and Bradstreet said that is not true. Bradstreet said she didn’t even know that Jason Marks was bidding on the Sukeforth property. Marks’ father actually brought the envelope with the sealed bid into the Town Office, she said, so town officials thought he was the one seeking to purchase it, not Jason. And while the town does hire Jason Marks to do electrical work, it is because he is the only local electrician available and lives in the town, according to Bradstreet, who said town officials actually were anticipating that Sawlan-Neiman would submit the higher bid so Sukeforth could keep the property.

“There was absolutely nothing underhanded,” Bradstreet said. “We were hoping she would get it.”

Jason Marks said that after he became owner of the Sukeforth property, he could have evicted the Sukeforths by September; but instead, he allowed the couple to stay in the house if they would pay rent.

“He (Richard Sukeforth) refused to pay any rent, and he actually refused to let me clean up the property because my insurance company was giving me a hard time about that,” Marks said.

GOVERNOR’S INVOLVEMENT

Marks said he got a call from a lawyer in the governor’s office last year asking to meet with him and LePage, but Marks did not want to meet with them unless he could have his own lawyer at such a meeting.

“I felt uncomfortable with the governor’s lawyer included in this when it originally happened because he mentioned he was going to look into future legislation and the well-being of Richard Sukeforth,” Marks said. “I was wanting to meet with the governor at my lawyer’s office because he was going to have his legal counsel there and said they were looking out for the well-being of Richard Sukeforth; but the deputy legal counsel told me the governor probably would refuse, and I never heard back from them.”

But LePage said he did not ask for lawyers to be present — that he wanted to meet with Marks, one-on-one, to ask if he would let the Sukeforths stay in the house for the rest of their lives.

“I never meet with lawyers,” LePage said Friday. “When I ask for a meeting, it’s me, alone. When I go after corruption, I go after corruption head-on. I don’t need any help.”

Marks said he actually tried to find help for the Sukeforths and called Sen. Susan Collins’ office, which was working to find out what could be done to help the couple. He said he spoke with a woman at that office. “She told me that Richard fell through every crack there is, and my comment to her was it’s too bad that he did work his whole life because if he didn’t work, there would have been benefits for him.”

A message left at Collins’ Augusta office was not returned immediately Friday.

LePage said there are programs to help elderly people, but he did not learn about the situation until after the foreclosure and transfer of the property.

Marks said he felt as if he was being made to feel like a bad person for evicting the Sukeforths and felt pressured by the governor.

“It’s not that I bought the property with the intentions of kicking him out and being done with it,” he said. “I tried doing something along the way to help.”

Both Bradstreet and Marks question how a law would work that would prohibit municipalities from foreclosing on and evicting elderly people who do not pay taxes. Bradstreet wonders if it would place a financial burden on towns. Marks said at some point, a town must foreclose.

“It’s too bad it’s an elderly person, but someone not paying their taxes makes it harder for everyone who does,” Marks said. “Everyone else pays their fair share.”

Marks also wondered why LePage is so invested in the Sukeforth case and said he welcomes LePage to come and look at the camp the Sukeforths lived in, to see the conditions inside, and he would talk to the governor about it.

“It’s not a place I’d want my family to live,” Marks said.

Richard and Leonette Sukeforth, both 80 years old, live in Holden with 

their daughter Yvette Ingalls after having been evicted from their home 

in Albion for nonpayment of real estate taxes. Staff photo by David Leaming

It’s not uncommon for governors or legislators to propose bills based on a single case — usually compelling stories involving matters such as child disappearances or deaths, according to Melcher, the UMF political science professor. Those anecdotes, though, are typically widely known and reported in the media before legislation is brought forward, whereas the Albion case has been known recently only to the people involved, town officials and LePage’s office.

Melcher cautioned against legislation based solely on a single incident.

“One case leading to action is not unusual; but for policy, we should wonder if this is a sign of a bigger problem, or are we reacting to just one thing?” Melcher said. “Sometimes when people get emotional, they make decisions they regret later. It’s good to start an examination based on a single case, but you don’t want to make policy on just one case without looking at all the implications.”

LePage, though, said he knows of other cases like the Sukeforths’.

Meanwhile, Rachel and Rick Sukeforth have been packing up his parents’ belongings and moving them out, little by little, and Marks has been good about them allowing them to do that, Rachel said.

She said she hopes LePage’s efforts to get a bill passed are successful.

“It’s so important to be a voice for the elderly,” she said, “because people just tend to throw them aside like they’re nothing because of their age.”

Full Article & Source:
Elderly couple’s eviction from Albion home draws LePage’s ire

Florida Woman Buys Back House After Neighbor, 89, Evicted

When a Florida woman was evicted from the house she had lived in for decades, neighbors rallied to help, including one who gave her the ultimate gift: she bought back the house.

Angie Tyma moved back into her longtime home in Hudson, Florida, last Tuesday, which happened to be her 89th birthday, after three weeks of staying at a Days Inn hotel. She told TODAY that losing the house was a scary time, but she was glad to be home.

"I went through hell and back," she said. "I've lived in this house for 35 years."

Tyma was evicted last month after learning the person she had sold the house to several years earlier, who lives in Europe, had stopped paying the mortgage, and the house went into foreclosure. Despite a warning, Tyma, whose husband died nearly 20 years ago, didn't think she would be tossed onto the streets.

"They threw me out," she said. "I couldn't believe it."

Once the neighborhood saw Tyma’s belongings being taken out of the house, they jumped to help. But it was Danielle Calder, who lives a few houses away, who made the decision to buy back the house.

She contacted the company that had purchased it at auction and bought it back for $167,500. Now she’s Tyma’s new landlord.

"Quite honestly, I didn't need another house," Calder, 65, told TODAY. "But I needed her. I couldn't see her living in a motel room... she's been here so long. Everyone looks out for her."

Full Article and Source:
Floriada Woman Buys Back House After Neighbor, 89, Evicted

Family’s guardianship experience shows a system out of control

Regarding Diane Dimond’s series [Who Guards the Guardians?], our sister started this guardianship stuff and, yes, it has spiraled out of control.

A very similar chain of events has started, with court proceedings the same as your articles and similar titles involved to handle all these affairs.

A guardian, who never seems to be available when needed, has spent $33,000 since June 2016.

Mom is now completely broke and was asked to leave the nursing home they put her in as there is no money to pay them. Her home was put up for sale, but has not sold at this point. So she was kicked out on Nov. 30.

The guardian now has lied to be able to admit her to a hospital so that she has a place to be. We had cleaned out her house, as directed by them, to get it ready to be sold and now it is devoid of any furnishings.

We have since found out they have depleted her bank accounts. The accounts are sitting there overdrawn and her utilities have been disconnected for nonpayment. Her homeowners insurance has been canceled for nonpayment.

We are completely powerless to do anything about it.

Mom fell at the assisted living nursing home where they had her. They didn’t even take her to a medical facility to be checked out until we demanded they do so.

After they discharged her, we called the guardian and, of course, he didn’t show up. We took her to my house to spend the night instead of taking her back to the nursing home. The guardian threatened to have me arrested.

I had to call police to make a report – in fear he could actually do so.

We have called Adult Protective Services and the Attorney General’s Office, and it seems all these agencies cannot investigate any of these proceedings. No one will help our mom, who is over 90 years old. And we can’t, either.

She was living at home with her son and surviving just fine until all this. She could maintain her residence as it was paid in full. She gets $753 a month from Social Security. That was enough to pay her bills, including her home insurance and life insurance policy. They have also cashed that in.

How can these people do this and what can we do about it? Please let us know if there are any avenues to do something.

We cannot afford an attorney of our own to fight this. None we have talked to will even take a case like this.

What an atrocity this has become. The state of New Mexico should be ashamed for doing things like this to our seniors.

We have documents of what happened before court and interviews between prospective guardians and the attorney in charge of the process, who for various reasons would not let any of us be guardians due to “bickering,” as she put it.

So they could get this done, before the court hearing, our sister’s attorney even called the police department and tried to get us arrested for abuse. The police were told there were guns in the house and Mom was in danger. There was not and the police left.

The guardians are now waiting with Mom at the hospital to place her in yet another nursing home, paid for by the state because she doesn’t have any money.

My brother offered to get her things out of storage and take her home, but the guardian said it would only be for a couple of weeks until they find her a place in a nursing home, and the guardians don’t have money to pay utilities.

This is just a living nightmare. Who can protect our seniors? Help!

Full Article & Source:
Family’s guardianship experience shows a system out of control

See Also:
Who Guards the Guardians?

Eviction notices posted on retirement home doors shock seniors

WESTWOOD, Calif. -- Flossy Liebman is a collector of clocks, but she’s losing time. The 95-year-old says she and the roughly 200 others at Vintage Westwood Horizons senior living center are being evicted, CBS Los Angeles reported.
Many of the residents are in their 90s.

Notices were posted on the residents’ doors last week, saying the seniors have until the end of March to move -- and most don’t know where to go.

“I mean everybody’s panicked,” Liebman said.

“People have been calling around to all of the facilities that take seniors in any capacity and are finding no spaces anywhere,” daughter Jane Blumenfield said. “Just waiting lists.”

Some of the residents have financial limitations. Loneliness is also a factor. At the senior center, they say they don’t feel alone.

“It’s their life,” Blumenfield said. “It’s their whole social network.”


(Click to Continue Reading)

Full Article & Source:
Eviction notices posted on retirement home doors shock seniors

Elderly couple scammed out of home by grandson gives up fight

LOS ANGELES -- An elderly couple has given up fighting an eviction from the home they've lived in for nearly six decades after their grandson allegedly mortgaged it away and sold it without their knowledge.

Helen and Hank Kawecki are scheduled to leave their home this Saturday.

The Kaweckis, both in their late 80s, have been facing eviction for months after they signed over the deed to the home to their grandson, who allegedly mortgaged the property to the maximum with three loans and defaulted on all of them, the couple said.

The relative also allegedly sold the house without their knowledge.

He persuaded his grandparents to sign the deed over, promising he would take care of them financially, according to a GoFundMe page.

"It's hard, very hard, to leave this. But we don't have any choice. And I didn't ever think my grandson would ever do this to me. Ever," said Helen Kawecki.

The couple will move in to a mobile home in a senior living community, thanks to the generosity of the community and neighbors who helped raise nearly $125,000 on their behalf.

Doug and Linda Emerson, who live across the street from the Kaweckis, created the fundraising page. They first learned of the alleged fraud after a real estate agent introduced her clients to them as the soon-to-be residents of the Kaweckis' house, The Star reported back in July.

That prompted Doug Emerson -- who knew the couple planned to live in their house for the rest of their lives -- to investigate online.

After learning the loans against the home were in default, and knowing that the couple had no money and nowhere else to go, the Emersons helped the couple hire a lawyer to fight back.

The attorney tried to halt the sale, but "the lenders went through the foreclosure process and that could not be stopped," Doug Emerson wrote on the fundraising page.

Although they were given a temporary reprieve, the couple has been evicted from their home and has until Sept. 27 to move out, according to an update on the page.

The Kaweckis are terrified of what the future holds, but are grateful they have some place to go.

"Not used to this," said Hank Kawecki. "I don't know what to say anymore. It's a hard thing."

Local law enforcement and the Ventura County District Attorney's Office have investigated the case, according to the GoFund Me page. KTLA reports that it was not immediately known whether the grandson would face any charges.

The Kaweckis have said they are sharing their story in the hopes that it serves as a warning to other families.

Full Article & Source:
Elderly couple scammed out of home by grandson gives up fight

Couple Says Grandson Scammed Them Out of Their Home

Helen Kawecki said she never dreamed that she would have to leave the Thousand Oaks home she and her husband have been living in for more than five decades.

The couple in their late 80s will be evicted Monday after their grandson sold their house without telling them, the Kaweckis claimed.

Hank Kawecki said it’s worse than the ultimate betrayal. “It’s kind of bad. It’s your own family,” he sighed.

It was the couple’s neighbor who broke the sad news to them. “They came down with some computer work, and they said: ‘Your house is for sale.’ I said: ‘No, it’s not.’ ”

Full Article and Source:
Couple Says Grandson Scammed Them Out of Their Home

Assisted living home in Livonia shut down by state officials

LIVONIA, Mich. - An assisted living home in Livonia has been shut down by the state due to alleged violations.

All residents at Ashley Court are being ordered to move out as early as 6 p.m. Wednesday. Residents were being evacuated Wednesday afternoon.

According to a statement released by the state, the Michigan Bureau of Fire Services found several repeat violations at the home and the Bureau of Health Care Services found quality of care issues.

The immediate threat that caused the suspension order was due to the Bureau of Fire Services' disapproval of the buildings.

Investigators said there were 13 violations regarding the license, staff had not been properly trained, patients had been injured and there were a total of 20 safety violations.

"We received a call at noon saying that we had to have our relatives out by 6 this evening and that the state was closing the facility. The state Department of Licensing told us that the adult foster care from the state were going to petition for guardianship if we didn't get our parents out within that period, that they were going to petition for guardianship and lock the doors," said Gabe McCann, whose 85-year-old mother lives at the home.

The facility deals mainly with Alzheimer's patients and people suffering from dementia. McCann said he had no notice.

"We're going to have to move to a short-term facility, and then to another facility. That creates setbacks for people who are elderly every time you move them," he said.

The Bureau of Health Care Services is working with Michigan Audlt Protective Services to assist with resident relocation.

Full Article & Source:
Assisted living home in Livonia shut down by state officials