The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s order granting partial summary judgment in favor of a senior community concerning a resident’s breach of contract and financial exploitation claims where the resident failed to establish that she was entitled to a refund of a lifetime use fee or that the community had failed to transfer her to its nursing facility due to the lack of an available room. Anderson v. Ascension Health-IS, Inc., No. E2024-00977-COA-R3-CV, 2025 WL 2622782 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 11, 2025).
In 2011, Susan and Ralph Anderson entered into a contract with Alexian Village of Tennessee (Alexian) to reside in Alexian Village, a senior living community consisting of independent living apartments, assisted living centers, and nursing facilities. They paid a lifetime use fee of $237,200, which would allow them to receive care at any level without incurring additional costs, and moved into an apartment. Ralph died in 2013. Susan’s health declined, and in 2014, a conservator was appointed for her. Susan incurred costs for private caregivers who stayed with her at the apartment.
In 2018, Susan brought an action against Alexian and its owner, Ascension Health-IS (collectively Alexian), alleging breach of contract, financial exploitation of the elderly, negligence and negligent hiring, and the collection of improper charges. Alexian filed a motion for partial summary judgment. The court granted Alexian’s motion for partial summary judgment on the breach of contract and financial exploitation claims. Susan appealed.
The Tennessee Court of Appeals noted that issues of contract interpretation are subject to a de novo review. The court rejected Susan’s claim that the contract had been terminated and that Alexian had breached the contract by refusing to refund the lifetime use fee. The court noted that the 2011 contract stated that no refund was due unless the contract was terminated with respect to every resident who occupied the apartment during the term of the agreement. The court determined, based on the plain language of the agreement, that both Susan and Ralph would have had to terminate the contract to be entitled to a refund. However, there was no evidence that either of them had provided written notice of an intent to terminate as required by the terms of the contract.
The court also rejected Susan’s position that Alexian had breached its contract by failing to transfer her—because no room was available—to a facility that could provide a higher level of care after her health deteriorated, requiring her to incur expenses for private nurses until she could be transferred. The evidence supported Alexian’s position that a room had been available in its nursing facility and that this had been communicated to Susan’s conservator. The conservator explained in a deposition that although a room was available, a new nursing facility was being constructed, and based on Susan’s expressed wishes, her conservator and other involved parties had agreed that Susan would not be moved until the new facility was completed despite the additional expense of paying private caregivers.
The court affirmed the trial court’s grant of partial summary judgment in favor of Alexian regarding Susan’s breach of contract and financial claims and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Subscribe to the Knowledge Bank.
