Henry Ford Village is a large senior housing provider in the metro Detroit area. At least some of their residents enter into continuing care contracts that require an up front entrance fee, some or all of which fee can later be refunded in accordance with the terms of the admissions contract.
In the case of Reginald Smith, he paid $152,000 when he entered. When he died, the trustee of his trust and the personal representative of his estate recovered only about $127,000. The Trustee/P.R. did not dispute that the refund would appropriately be reduced by about $10,000, but did contest the reduction of the other approximately $15,000. That difference arose because of a provision in the contract that said that the refund would be contingent on the admission of a new replacement resident, and the payment by the new resident of a new entrance fee. After Mr. Smith died and some time passed during which no new resident was found who was willing to pay the full entrance fee, the Trustee/P.R. entered into a modification of the contract to allow the space to be filled by a new resident who paid a reduced entrance fee – reduced by the disputed $15,000.
The Trustee/P.R. sued Henry Ford Village and various related entities for the $15,000 difference, and lost in the trial court level on summary disposition. The appeal followed from that decision.
In the second paragraph of the COA opinion, the panel notes that: “At oral argument, plaintiff conceded that HFV violated none of the terms of its contract with the decedent or agreement with plaintiff, as those documents are actually written.”
And, for Plaintiff/Appellant, it goes downhill from there. Downhill even to the point of the COA becoming insulting toward the work of Appellant’s legal counsel. Among other things, the COA characterizes the Appellant’s brief as “exceedingly loquacious and difficult to comprehend.” Loquacious means wordy. The COA affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the lawsuit.
I report on the opinion because it is published (although I don’t know why), and many people who practice in this area of law no doubt intersect with Henry Ford Village and advise clients about continuing care community contracts. If there’s a lesson here (and I’m not sure that there is), I believe the lesson might be that continuing care community contracts are complicated and are likely drafted in a way that favors the financial interests of the people managing the facility.