complaint·April 27, 2026

The ED stated that R1 had been paying below the current market rate of $2,300 per month and had a long pattern of late or inconsistent payments. The ED stated the facility had been working with R1 for several months to help them address the unpaid balance and had waived several late fees to assist them. The ED explained that once an eviction matter is sent to the facility’s legal team, the process usually takes three to four months, and residents are not required to leave immediately. The ED reported that the facility does not accept cash payments and uses an online payment portal. According to the ED, the portal would be reset so R1 could resume making payments electronically. The ED stated that R1 had been provided with a detailed invoice with a breakdown of charges in the past and that the facility would provide another copy. The Department interviewed R1 in their room. R1 reported that they had recently returned from multiple hospital stays throughout the year due to ongoing medical issues, including surgeries on their knee and foot. R1 said they pay rent on the second Wednesday of each month using their Social Security income, which is their only source of income. R1 stated they originally signed an admission agreement with the facility’s previous owner but never signed a new admission agreement with the current owner. According to R1, in November 2025 they were told they owed $6,400 in past-due rent, but they did not receive a detailed explanation of how the amount was calculated at that time. R1 stated they had difficulty reaching administrative staff for clarification and said a staff member handed them a 30‑day eviction notice without answering any questions. R1 said they had $4,600 available to pay toward their balance but were unable to access the online payment portal, and they were told they could only pay in cash. R1 did not feel comfortable making a large cash payment and wanted clearer information. R1 also stated they were searching for another senior living option with support from their daughter because they felt they could no longer afford the facility’s rates and needed more time to relocate. The Department reviewed facility payment ledgers and invoices dated October 31, 2024 through May 1, 2026. The records showed R1 accumulated a significant outstanding balance beginning in late 2024 due to late or incomplete payments. According to the ledger, the current balance due as of May 1, 2026 is $20,200.00 . The Department confirmed that the last payment R1 made was $2,100.00 on October 10, 2025 . R1 has not made any payments for rent due from November 1, 2025 through the date of the Department’s review. The Department also reviewed R1’s admission agreement dated November 27, 2020, which listed R1’s monthly rate as $1,495 under the previous operator. On November 19, 2025, the Department received a written copy of a 30 ay eviction notice dated November 13, 2025. The notice stated that R1 owed $6,400 in rent from November 2024 through November 2025 and instructed them to either pay the balance or move out by December 15, 2025. Regarding the housekeeping concern, R1 stated they did not receive maid service for five weeks, even though housekeeping service was part of their admission agreement. The Department reviewed the facility’s housekeeping schedules dated January 22, 2026 through April 4, 2026. The records showed that Housekeeper 1 logged and signed a total of 11 entries documenting that R1’s room was cleaned during this period. The entries showed that services included cleaning the refrigerator, cleaning the microwave, wiping the sink and counter tops, emptying trash cans, cleaning the bathroom, vacuuming, dusting surfaces, and other routine cleaning tasks. This documentation did not support the concern that R1 went five full weeks without receiving housekeeping service. Based on all interviews and document reviews, the Department did not find evidence that the facility unlawfully evicted R1. The eviction notice was provided in writing, included the required information, and the facility stated they were willing to work with R1. The Department also did not find evidence that the facility failed to follow the admission agreement. Billing statements supported the amounts owed, and housekeeping logs showed regular room cleanings during the period in question. While R1 experienced communication difficulties and did not receive timely explanations from staff, this did not constitute a regulatory violation. For these reasons, both allegations—unlawful eviction and failure to follow the admission agreement—are unsubstantiated. The report was discussed, and an exit interview was conducted with Abraham Botello. A copy of this report along with Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 3/22) were provided to Abraham Boello at the conclusion of the visit. The signature below confirms the receipt of these documents.