Complaint·April 10, 2026

[CONTINUED FROM LIC 9099] Soon after the aforementioned letter was served, R1 and their collaborating outside social worker, Person #1 (P1), entered into negotiations with facility management to explore a potential repayment plan. On 03/19/2026, Licensee extended their first offer verbally to R1 and P1: If R1 were to both vacate their facility apartment and pay one lump sum of $10,000 in full by/on 04/01/2026, then Licensee would waive/forgive the remainder of R1’s final balance owed. R1 and P1 counteroffered (“Counteroffer #1”), saying they could both pay $3,000 upfront and vacate the apartment by/on 04/01/2026, and then pay an additional $7,000 in $500 monthly installments thereafter, if Licensee agreed to waive/forgive the remainder of R1’s final balance owed. Interviews disputed what occurred next: The Complainant said during the above meeting, the facility administrator, Staff #1 (S1), verbally accepted R1/P1’s Counteroffer #1, as witnessed by billing manager Staff #2 (S2). However, in their own interviews, S1 and S2 said on this date, they agreed only to forward R1/P1’s Counteroffer #1 to Atria’s corporate office in Kentucky for review/decision. S1 and S2 both said S1 clearly told R1 and P1 that Licensee had not yet committed to accepting this counteroffer, and that the corporate office’s approval would be required. Reviews and interviews converged/aligned again to show: The next day on 03/20/2026, R1, accompanied by their friend/advocate Person #2 (P2), handed a $3,000 cashier’s check to S1. S1 told R1 that Atria’s corporate office had not yet decided whether to accept Counteroffer #1, but S1 pledged to place R1’s cashier’s check in a secure/locked office space at the facility and not yet cash it, pending the corporate office’s decision/instruction. Over the next week or more, S1 was intermittently on and off duty (i.e., not at work continuously). P1’s phone calls to S1 were not timely returned during this period, leading R1/P1 to falsely assume that Licensee had accepted Counteroffer #1, since they received zero communication to the contrary. On 03/31/2026, R1 and P2 began to physically move R1’s personal belongings out of R1’s apartment. At the start of this moving, S1 and S2 presented a document ("Settlement Contract #1") to R1, P1, and P2, which essentially stated: Licensee would accept $3,000 from R1 upfront and required R1 to vacate their apartment by/on 04/01/2026, for which they would then allow R1 to pay their remaining balance of $23,347.02 in $500 monthly installments thereafter. (Settlement Contract #1 thus offered no waiver/forgiveness of any part of R1’s debt.) P1 quickly phoned S1 to alert them that this document seemed to significantly deviate from what was earlier discussed; S1 immediately agreed/replied that Settlement Contract #1 contained a major defect/error regarding the amount to be paid in installments, and that they would have Atria’s corporate office amend and reissue it. [CONTINUED ON LIC 9099-C, 2 of 3] [CONTINUED FROM LIC 9099-C, 1 of 2] R1 and S2 thus continued with their moving of belongings out of R1’s apartment, which continued into 04/01/2026. Subsequently, S1 and S2 gave R1, P1, and P2 and amended document ("Settlement Contract #2"), which essentially stated: If R1 paid $3,000 upfront and vacated their apartment on 04/01/2026 and then paid another $10,000 in $500 monthly installments thereafter, Licensee would waive/forgive the remainder of R1’s final balance owed (“Counteroffer #2”). Upon P1 receiving a copy of Settlement Contract #2, P1 immediately communicated to S1 and S2 that the contract was again in error (i.e., P1 said the installment balance should be $7,000 and not $10,000, as a reflection of the $3,000 cashier’s check that R1 already handed to Licensee). S1 now, for the first time, communicated to R1, P1, P2 that Counteroffer #1 was rejected, and that this Counteroffer #2 (as articulated in Settlement Contract #2) was Licensee’s last and final offer. Interviews disputed when said rejection, along with Settlement Contract #2 / Counteroffer #2, was presented to R1, P1, and P2, in practice: S1 and S2 claimed they presented such on 03/31/2026, whereas P1 and P2 claimed it was on 04/01/2026. In protest, R1 and P1 refused to sign Settlement Contract #2. R1 physically and administratively moved out of Atria Collwood on 04/01/2026. S1 affirmed to CCLD: a) The $3,000 cashier’s check which R1 earlier handed to them was strictly given as a down-payment/security on what was expected to be a later repayment/installment plan contract. It was not a standard monthly rent payment, and S1 was supposed to return it to R1 if negotiations fell through.; and, b) Negotiations indeed ultimately fell through. Interviews of the other pertinent individuals in this case corroborated these same two truths; they are not under dispute. During his own 04/07/2026 site visit, LPA asked S1 for R1’s cashier’s check. S1 replied that it had been mailed to the Atria corporate office in Kentucky. LPA allowed S1 three (3) business days to contact the corporate office to inquire as to the status of this cashier’s check, and whether it was still returnable to R1. On 04/10/2026, S1 informed LPA that said cashier’s check was not returnable to R1. Additionally, interviews aligned to show: During R1’s move out, S1 instructed maintenance manager Staff #3 (S3) to change out the lock on R1’s apartment door. S3 performed this action before close of business (i.e., 5:00 PM) on 04/01/2026, while R1’s recliner chair was still inside their apartment, and while having constructive knowledge that: R1 had not yet surrendered/relinquished their apartment key to Licensee’s staff and that R1 had not yet submitted / turned-in their “Atria Resident Move Out Form,” which represents the resident’s written attestation that they have finished removing “all personal property” from their apartment. (This form is part of the facility’s standard operating procedure). [CONTINUED ON LIC 9099-C, 3 of 3] [CONTINUED FROM LIC 9099-C, 2 of 3] CCLD also reviewed date and timestamped video footage showing: a) R1 and P2 attempting to open R1’s apartment door with R1’s issued key, unsuccessfully (4:30 PM on 04/01/2026, per the metadata); b) R1 and P2 trying the numeric-code on the side facility entry door, unsuccessfully (4:31 PM on 04/01/2026, per the metadata); and, c) R1 at the facility’s front desk asking for staff to unlock their own apartment door so that they could retrieve their recliner chair (4:50 PM on 04/01/2026, per the metadata). In their own interviews with LPA on 04/07/2026, S1, S2, and S3 each told LPA that R1 had earlier announced their intent to abandon (not take) their own recliner chair with them, and that this chair was still sitting inside R1’s former apartment. When LPA entered said apartment on 04/07/2026, he observed that while the room had not yet been cleaned/turned-over, R1’s recliner chair was not there, indicating R1 and/or S2 had retrieved it. The Department concluded: a) R1 and P2 started the process of vacating R1’s apartment on 03/31/2026 under the sincere belief that the terms of Counteroffer #1 would be followed; b) Licensee allowed R1 and P2 to keep moving R1 out under this false belief on 03/31/2026, despite Licensee themselves knowing on that date that they had no intention of accepting Counteroffer #1; c) Licensee waited until most of R1’s belongings were physically out of the apartment before effectively communicating their rejection of Counteroffer #1; d) In locking R1 out of their apartment, Licensee eliminated R1’s right to walk away from a deal; e) In cashing R1’s downpayment cashier’s check, Licensee forfeited its own right to walk away from a deal; and, f) Prior to negotiations, R1 was legally entitled to occupy their apartment through 04/24/2026, but R1 instead vacated the premises twenty-three (23) days early, on the date of Licensee’s choosing, and to Licensee’s significant advantage. Given the totality of events, CCLD determined that a deal was struck in spirit, by action, and that the terms of Counteroffer #1 have precedence over those of Counteroffer #2. Based on records and interviews, a preponderance of evidence exists to show that Licensee locked R1 out of their own apartment, and that Licensee did not negotiate with R1 in good faith. Both allegations are therefore Substantiated, and deficiencies were cited for them per California Code of Regulations, Title 22 (refer to the LIC 9099-D page). Plans of Correction were jointly developed with the Licensee. An exit interview was conducted with Executive Director Julia Lopez, to whom a copy of this report, the LIC 9099-D page, the LIC811 Confidential Names List, and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided.