AUDIT REPORT LAKEWOOD CARE CENTER MULTIFAMILY EQUITY SKIMMING MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN 2005-CH-1004 DECEMBER 22, 2004 OFFICE OF AUDIT, REGION V CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Exit Table Of Contents Issue Date December 22, 2004 Audit Report Number 2005-CH-1004 TO: Howard Goldman, Director of Minneapolis Multifamily Housing Hub, 5KHMLA Margarita Maisonet, Director of Departmental Enforcement Center, CV FROM: Heath Wolfe, Regional Inspector General for Audit, 5AGA SUBJECT: Lakewood Care Center; Milwaukee, WI; Multifamily Equity Skimming of More Than $1 Million in Project Funds HIGHLIGHTS What We Audited and Why We reviewed the books and records of the Lakewood Care Center (Project), a 196-bed skilled nursing facility in Milwaukee, WI. The review was part of our efforts to combat multifamily equity skimming. The review was also part of our nationwide reviews of nursing homes due to the increasingly high default rate and number of Federal Housing Administration (FHA) insurance claims being paid under the Section 232 program. We chose the Project due to its default status and more than $1 million dollar write-off of bad debt reported in its fiscal year 2002 audited financial statements. Our review objective was to determine whether the owner/management agent used Project funds in compliance with the Regulatory Agreement and the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) requirements. What We Found The owner of the Project, 2115 Woodstock Place, LLC (Woodstock Place), inappropriately disposed of $1,021,056 in Project assets on December 31, 2002, without obtaining HUD approval and in violation of its Regulatory Agreement. Exit Table Of Contents The Project was in a non-surplus cash position and in default of its FHA-insured loan at the time of the disposition. Woodstock Place also inappropriately loaned $612,500 of Project funds to Summit Health Care, Incorporated, the identity of interest operator of the Project. The Project was in a non-surplus cash position and/or in default at the time Woodstock Place made the loans. What We Recommend We recommend that HUD’s Director of Multifamily Housing Hub, Minneapolis Field Office, ensure that Woodstock Place reimburse the Project’s Reserve for Replacement and/or HUD’s FHA insurance fund $1,021,056 for the inappropriate disposition of Project assets. We also recommend that HUD’s Director of Multifamily Housing Hub, in conjunction with HUD’s Office of Inspector General, pursue double damages remedies if Woodstock Place does not reimburse the Project’s Reserve for Replacement and/or the FHA insurance fund for the inappropriate disposition of Project assets. We also recommend that HUD’s Director of Departmental Enforcement Center impose civil money penalties and pursue administrative sanctions against Woodstock Place and its Managing Member. For each recommendation without a management decision, please respond and provide status reports in accordance with HUD Handbook 2000.06, REV-3. Please furnish us copies of any correspondence or directives issued because of the audit. Auditee’s Response We provided our discussion draft audit finding to Woodstock Place’s Managing Member and HUD’s staff during the review. We held an exit conference with the Managing Member and HUD’s staff on June 7, 2004. Woodstock Place’s Managing Member did not disagree with our finding that Woodstock Place disposed of and loaned the Project’s assets. However, the Managing Member did not agree with our recommendations due to either HUD’s knowledge and/or approval of Woodstock Place’s disposition and/or loaning of the Project’s assets. We included the complete text of the Managing Member’s comments in appendix B of this report. 2 Exit Table Of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Background and Objectives 4 Results of Audit Finding 1: Woodstock Place Inappropriately Disposed of More Than $1 Million 5 in Project Funds Scope and Methodology 8 Internal Controls 9 Appendixes A. Schedule of Ineligible Costs 11 B. Auditee Comments and OIG’s Evaluation 12 C. Federal Requirements 26 3 Exit BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE Lakewood Care Center (Project) is a 196-bed skilled nursing facility in Milwaukee, WI. The Project was insured under Section 232 of the National Housing Act and its Regulatory Agreement was executed on September 1, 1999. The Project’s owner was 2115 Woodstock Place, LLC (Woodstock Place). The Managing Member of Woodstock Place was also the President of Summit Health Care, Incorporated (Summit), the identity of interest operator of the Project. The Project was in a non-surplus cash position as of September 1999 and Woodstock Place was in default of its U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)-insured mortgage as of June 2002. Woodstock Place sold the Project on August 28, 2003, through a Transfer of Physical Assets. The review was part of our efforts to combat multifamily equity skimming. The review was also part of our nationwide reviews of nursing homes due to the increasingly high default rate and number of FHA insurance claims being paid under the Section 232 program. We chose the Project due to its default status and more than $1 million dollar write-off of bad debt reported in its fiscal year 2002 audited financial statements. Our review objective was to determine whether the owner/management agent used Project funds in compliance with the Regulatory Agreement and HUD’s requirements. 4 Exit Table Of Contents RESULTS OF AUDIT Finding: Woodstock Place Inappropriately Disposed of More than $1 Million in Project Funds The owner of the Project, 2115 Woodstock Place, LLC (Woodstock Place), inappropriately disposed of $1,021,056 in Project assets on December 31, 2002, without obtaining HUD approval and in violation of its Regulatory Agreement. The Project was in a non-surplus cash position and in default at the time of the disposition. The inappropriate disposition included $509,778 in loans and $511,278 in delinquent lease payments. Contrary to the Regulatory Agreement, Woodstock Place loaned $612,500 of Project funds to Summit, the identity of interest operator of the Project. Further, Woodstock Place reclassified the payment of $147,478 in 1998 real estate taxes as a loan to Summit in its fiscal year 1999 audited financial statements. Summit repaid $250,200 of the loans as of December 2002. However, Summit failed to make $511,278 in lease payments to Woodstock Place from April 2001 through December 2002. The problems occurred because Woodstock Place did not follow its Regulatory Agreement and lacked effective procedures and controls to assure Project funds were used appropriately. As a result, fewer funds were available for debt service, and Project funds were not used efficiently and effectively. Woodstock Place Inappropriately Disposed of More than $1 Million in Project Funds Woodstock Place inappropriately wrote-off $1,021,056 in Project assets as bad debt on December 31, 2002. The Project was in a non-surplus cash position at the time of the disposition. Further, Woodstock Place had been in default of its mortgage since June 2002. Woodstock Place failed to obtain HUD approval for the disposition of the Project assets. The inappropriate disposition included $509,778 in loans and $511,278 in delinquent lease payments. Woodstock Place’s Managing Member said he was not aware the Regulatory Agreement required him to obtain HUD’s approval before disposing of Project assets. 5 Exit Table Of Contents Woodstock Place Inappropriately Loaned Project Funds to Summit Contrary to the Regulatory Agreement, Woodstock Place loaned $612,500 of Project funds to Summit, the identity of interest operator of the Project. Woodstock Place loaned $594,500 from October through December 1999. Woodstock Place loaned the remaining $18,000 to Summit in October 2002. The loans occurred while the Project was in a non-surplus cash position. The October 2002 loan also occurred while the Project was in default. Woodstock Place failed to obtain HUD approval for the loans. Further, Woodstock Place reclassified the payment of $147,478 in 1998 real estate taxes as a loan to Summit in its fiscal year 1999 audited financial statements. Summit repaid $250,200 of the loans between November 1999 and September 2000. Woodstock Place’s Managing Member, who was also the President of Summit, said Woodstock Place’s former Accountant transferred the Project funds for the 1999 loans without informing him. The Managing Member also said he first found out about the loans during the preparation of the 1999 audited financial statements. The former Accountant said she would have informed the Managing Member of any transfer of funds from the Project’s account. The Managing Member signed the check from Woodstock Place to Summit for the $18,000 loan. The Managing Member said he was not aware that HUD approval was required for a loan of Project funds while the Project is in a non- surplus cash position. Summit Failed To Make Lease Payments to Woodstock Place Summit failed to make $511,278 in lease payments to Woodstock Place from April 2001 through December 2002. Woodstock Place’s Amended and Restated Lease with Summit, dated September 1, 1999, required Summit to make monthly lease payments of $92,338. The lease payments were for the Project’s mortgage payment, real estate taxes, and property insurance. Summit paid its President, who was also Woodstock Place’s Managing Member, and/or his wife more than $1.2 million in salaries and distributions from September 1999 through August 2002. Therefore, Summit had ample funds to make the lease payments instead of paying the Managing Member and/or his wife the salaries and distributions. We believe these salaries and benefits of more than $1.2 million were an undue enrichment to the Managing Member and/or his wife at the expense of the Project’s financial position. 6 Exit Table Of Contents The Project’s Reserve Was Reduced by 92 Percent Woodstock Place had $1,021,056 less in Project funds to make mortgage and Reserve Fund for Replacement payments due to the inappropriate disbursements. HUD was not aware Woodstock Place made the loans to Summit or that Woodstock Place disposed of the Project’s assets. HUD approved Woodstock Place’s use of $526,754 from its Reserve account to bring its mortgage up to date. HUD’s Director of the Milwaukee Field Office of Multifamily Housing Program Center said HUD would not have approved the use of the Project’s Reserve if it had known about the loans and disposition of assets. Woodstock Place sold the Project on August 28, 2003, through a Transfer of Physical Assets. As a result, the Project’s reserve at the time of the sale was $48,811, $49,189 below HUD’s minimum requirement of $98,000 for the Project. Further, the Project’s reserve would have been $621,931 if Project funds had been available to make the mortgage and reserve payments. Recommendations We recommend that HUD’s Director of Multifamily Housing Hub, Minneapolis Field Office, ensure that Woodstock Place 1A. Reimburse the Project’s Reserve for Replacement and/or HUD’s FHA insurance fund $1,021,056 for the inappropriate disposition of Project assets. We also recommend that HUD’s Director of Multifamily Housing Hub, Minneapolis Field Office, in conjunction with HUD’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) 1B. Pursue double damages remedies if Woodstock Place does not reimburse the Project’s Reserve for Replacement and/or the FHA insurance fund for the inappropriate disposition of Project assets. We also recommend that HUD’s Director of Departmental Enforcement Center 1C. Impose civil money penalties against Woodstock Place and its Managing Member for the inappropriate loans and disposition of Project assets cited in this report that violated the Project’s Regulatory Agreement. 1D. Pursue administrative sanctions against Woodstock Place and its Managing Member for the inappropriate disposition of Project assets cited in this report. 7 Exit Table Of Contents SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY We performed the review at HUD’s Milwaukee Field Office and the Project from October 2003 through June 2004. To accomplish our audit objectives, we interviewed: HUD’s staff; the Project’s employees; Woodstock Place’s Managing Member and Summit’s President; employees from BDO Seidman, LLP, the independent public accountant who audited Woodstock Place; and the Executive Vice-President of Capital Funding Group, Inc., with whom Woodstock Place entered into the HUD-insured mortgage for the Project. To determine whether the owner/management agent used Project funds in compliance with the Regulatory Agreement and HUD’s requirements, we reviewed: • The Regulatory Agreements among HUD, Woodstock Place, and/or Summit; • HUD’s project files and correspondence related to the Project; • HUD’s Real Estate Management System information related to the Project; • Woodstock Place’s Amended and Restated Operating Agreement, Articles of Organization, Mortgage and Security Agreement with Capital Funding Group, Inc., and Amended and Restated Lease with Summit; • Woodstock Place’s and Summit’s financial records; • Woodstock Place’s audited financial statements for the years ending December 31, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002; and • The Articles of Incorporation for Summit and other identity of interest companies. We also reviewed Title 12, United States Code, sections 1715 and 1735; Title 31, United States Code, section 3801; 24 Code of Federal Regulations parts 24 and 232; and HUD Handbooks 2000.06, REV-3; 4350.1, REV-1; 4370.2, REV-1; and 4381.5, REV-2. The review covered the period September 1, 2001, to August 31, 2003. This period was adjusted as necessary. We performed our review in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards. 8 Exit Table Of Contents INTERNAL CONTROLS Internal control is an integral component of an organization’s management that provides reasonable assurance that the following objectives are being achieved: • Effectiveness and efficiency of operations; • Reliability of financial reporting; and • Compliance with applicable laws and regulations Internal controls relate to management’s plans, methods, and procedures used to meet its mission, goals and objectives. Internal controls include the processes and procedures for planning, organizing, directing and controlling program operations. They include the systems for measuring, reporting, and monitoring program performance. Relevant Internal Controls We determined the following internal controls were relevant to our review objectives: • Program Operations – Policies and procedures that management has implemented to reasonably ensure that a program meets its objectives. • Validity and Reliability of Data – Policies and procedures that management has implemented to reasonably ensure that valid and reliable data are obtained, maintained, and fairly disclosed in reports. • Compliance with Laws and Regulations – Policies and procedures that management implemented to reasonably ensure that resource use is consistent with laws and regulations. • Safeguarding Resources – Policies and procedures that management implemented to reasonably ensure that resources are safeguarded against waste, loss, and misuse. We assessed the relevant controls identified above. However, our assessment of the controls was limited since Woodstock Place no longer owned the Project as of August 28, 2003. A significant weakness exists if management controls do not provide reasonable assurance that the process for planning, organizing, directing, and controlling program operations will meet the organization’s objectives. 9 Exit Table Of Contents Significant Weaknesses Based on our review, we believe the following items are significant weaknesses: • Program Operations – Woodstock Place did not operate the Project according to its Regulatory Agreement. Specifically, Woodstock Place disposed of assets while in a non-surplus cash position and without approval from HUD (see Finding). • Safeguarding Resources – Woodstock Place inappropriately wrote-off $1,021,056 of Project assets as bad debt and loaned $612,500 of Project funds to Summit while in a non-surplus cash position and without approval from HUD (see Finding). 10 Exit Table Of Contents Appendixes Appendix A SCHEDULE OF INELIGIBLE COSTS Recommendation Number Ineligible 1/ 1A $1,021,056 Total $1,021,056 1/ Ineligible costs are costs charged to a HUD-financed or HUD-insured program or activity that the auditor believes are not allowable by law; contract; or Federal, State, or local policies or regulations. 11 Exit Table Of Contents Appendix B AUDITEE COMMENTS AND OIG'S EVALUATION Ref to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments 12 Exit Table Of Contents Ref to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments Comment 1 Comment 2 13 Exit Table Of Contents Ref to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments 14 Exit Table Of Contents Ref to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments 15 Exit Table Of Contents Ref to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments Comment 3 Comment 4 Comment 3 16 Exit Table Of Contents Ref to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments 17 Exit Table Of Contents Ref to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments Comment 2 18 Exit Table Of Contents Ref to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments 19 Exit Table Of Contents Ref to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments Comment 2 Comment 2 20 Exit Table Of Contents Ref to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments Comment 2 21 Exit Table Of Contents Ref to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments Comment 2 Comment 3 Comment 5 22 Exit Table Of Contents Ref to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments Comment 2 Comment 2 Comment 6 23 Exit Table Of Contents Ref to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments 24 Exit Table Of Contents OIG Evaluation of Auditee Comments Comment 1 We granted Woodstock Place an extension of 30 days to respond to the draft audit finding. HUD did not have possession of the Project’s documentation during the 45 days Woodstock Place had to respond to the draft audit finding. Comment 2 HUD’s receipt of annual financial statements does not constitute approval and/or knowledge of the Project’s financial position and actions. Further, HUD does not approve annual financial statements. Comment 3 HUD was not, and would not be expected to be, aware that Woodstock Place loaned Project funds to Summit prior to obtaining its HUD-insured mortgage. Comment 4 Woodstock Place loaned $612,500 of Project funds to Summit while the Project was in a non-surplus cash position. Woodstock Place’s Regulatory Agreement did not allow the loaning of Project funds while the Project was in a non-surplus cash position. Comment 5 Woodstock Place’s audited financial statements for the year ending December 31, 1999 submitted to HUD referred to Woodstock Place’s loans of Project funds to Summit as related party receivables. Therefore, HUD was not aware the related party receivables were loans to Summit. Comment 6 Woodstock Place loaned $594,500 of Project funds to Summit from October 1999 through December 1999. Woodstock Place loaned an additional $18,000 to Summit in October 2002. Woodstock Place wrote-off $1,021,056 in Project assets as bad debt on December 31, 2002. HUD approved Woodstock Place’s use of $526,754 from its Reserve account to bring its mortgage current. HUD’s approvals occurred from June 2001 through August 2003. Therefore, HUD’s approvals did not occur prior to Woodstock Place’s inappropriate disposition of Project assets. 25 Exit Table Of Contents Appendix C FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS Woodstock Place’s Regulatory Agreement, paragraph 6, mandated that the owner may not, without the prior written approval of the Secretary, (b) assign, transfer, dispose of, or encumber any personal property of the project, including rents, or pay out any funds except from surplus cash, except for reasonable operating expenses and necessary repairs; and (e) make or receive and retain any distribution of assets or any income of any kind of the project except surplus cash. Paragraph 13(g) of the Regulatory Agreement defines distribution as any withdrawal or taking of cash or any assets of the project, excluding payment for reasonable expenses incident to the operation and maintenance of the project. Paragraph 3 of Woodstock Place’s LLC Rider to Note, Mortgage, and Regulatory Agreement requires all signatories to the Rider to be liable for a) funds or property of the Project coming into their hands that they are not entitled to retain and b) their own acts and deeds or acts and deeds of others, which they have authorized, in violation of the provisions. HUD Handbook 4370.2, REV-1, CHG-1, “Financial Operations and Accounting Procedures for Insured Multifamily Projects,” paragraph 2-10, section A, states that if the owner takes distributions when the project is in default or when the project is in a non-surplus cash position, the owner is subject to criminal and/or civil penalties. According to 24 Code of Federal Regulations, part 24.110, HUD is permitted to take administrative sanctions against employees or recipients under HUD assistance agreements that violate HUD’s requirements. The sanctions include debarment, suspension, or limited denial of participation and are authorized by 24 Code of Federal Regulations, parts 24.300, 24.400, or 24.700, respectively. HUD may impose administrative sanctions based upon the following conditions: • Failure to honor contractual obligations or to proceed in accordance with contract specifications or HUD regulations (limited denial of participation); • Deficiencies in ongoing construction projects (limited denial of participation); • Violation of any law, regulation, or procedure relating to the application for financial assistance, insurance, or guarantee or to the performance of obligations incurred pursuant to a grant of financial assistance or pursuant to a conditional or final commitment to insure or guarantee (limited denial of participation); • Violation of the terms of a public agreement or transaction so serious as to affect the integrity of an agency program such as a history of failure to perform or unsatisfactory performance of one or more public agreements or transactions (debarment); • Any other cause so serious or compelling in nature that it affects the present responsibility of a person (debarment); or 26 Exit Table Of Contents • Material violation of a statutory or regulatory provision or program requirements applicable to a public agreement or transaction, including applications for grants, financial assistance, insurance, or guarantees, or to the performance of requirements under a grant, assistance award, or conditional or final commitment to insure or guarantee (debarment). Title 12, United States Code, section 1715z-4a, “Double Damages Remedy for Unauthorized Use of Multifamily Housing Project Assets and Income,” allows the Attorney General to recover double the value of any project assets or income that was used in violation of the Regulatory Agreement or any applicable regulation, plus all cost relating to the action, including but not limited to reasonable attorney and auditing fees. Title 12, United States Code, section 1735f-15, “Civil Money Penalties against Multifamily Mortgagors,” allows the Secretary to impose a civil money penalty of up to $25,000 per violation against a mortgagor with five or more living units and a HUD-insured mortgage. A penalty may be imposed for any knowing and material violation of the Regulatory Agreement by the mortgagor, such as paying out any funds for expenses that were not reasonable and necessary project operating expenses or making distributions to owners while the project is in a non-surplus cash position. 27 Exit Table Of Contents
Lakewood Care Center; Milwaukee, WI; Multifamily Equity Skimming of More Than $1 Million in Project Funds
Published by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General on 2004-12-22.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)