May 4, 2015

To my knowledge, nothing further has happened with this situation as of this date.  I am not certain whether LiveWell has responded to the questions submitted to them by the Board.  I believe that the Board is still seeking legal advice and that they will communicate with property owners when they feel it is appropriate.  In the meantime, I have been doing some research and wanted to share some information.

This post will provide information on the purchase of two cottages by LiveWell, several related items, a past lawsuit involving Justin Beckett and, lastly, some information on the type of facility being proposed.  I have divided this into sections so that you can skip anything that is not of interest.

Cottage Purchase Information

The following purchase information came from the County Recorder and is a matter of public record:

In both purchases, the buyer was LiveWell North Carolina Income Fund LLC, 6720 Pauline Drive, Chapel Hill, NC 27514. That is also the address of the only assisted living facility these people operate.

The cottage at 11476 Club Drive was purchased on 3/26/15 for $545,000. The seller was Duke Hatteras Partners LLC; a limited liability company of which Kirk Bradley is listed as the Manager. According to a recorded Deed of Trust, the seller took back a note for $387,313.

The cottage at 11472 Club Drive was purchased on 3/26/15 for $450,000. The seller was Patricia P. Bradley; who I believe is related to Kirk Bradley. The seller took back a note for $326,926.

This is the only information of record. All other aspects of the transaction, including the terms of the notes and the amount of down payment are not available to the public. Therefore, one should be careful in making assumptions, because there may possibly be aspects of this transaction that are not publicly known and which may affect each party’s risk. For example, a Deed of Trust only discloses debt secured by the property itself. If there is other related debt not secured by the property, it would not appear in the public records.

Here is the key point. One cannot look only at the recorded documents and assume a complete understanding of the transaction. Without access to all the documentation, which is clearly not possible here, one never knows for certain who paid what and what risks were taken. The only thing that is known is that the seller took back notes for reasonably substantial sums; and that the terms of the notes are unknown.

Two Related Items

When questioned as to why they moved so quickly on this purchase, the LiveWell people said that there were other parties interested in the cottages; the implication being that they had to move quickly before they were sold to somebody else. (Editorial Comment: Two thoughts. First, these cottages have been on the market for many years with no sales; and I think it is fair to say that the general market consensus was that the asking prices were too high. Second, when there is competition from several different buyers, it might be considered unusual to see such a large portion of the eventual purchase financed by the seller.  But that is just one view.  Again, without knowing all the details, all one can do is speculate.)

Late last year, one of the other cottages was purchased by a GC resident and is now being run as a standalone overnight guest facility called The Inn at Governors Club. According to our covenants, this type of business is permissible within the cottages. In fact, this is precisely the type of business run by the developer until he discontinued those operations five or six years ago. I have heard numerous people comment that this cottage was sold for substantially less than the amounts paid by LiveWell. That is true. The recorded deed shows a purchase price of $331,000. However, it should be noted that this cottage was not sold by an entity related to Kirk Bradley. Rather, it was sold by an affiliate of Aetna Life Insurance Company. And I have no idea how that cottage compared in terms of size and condition to those purchased by LiveWell; and both of those critical aspects would have affected the sale value.

Justin Beckett – Prior Unrelated Legal Action

Limited information was recently circulating by e-mail regarding a prior lawsuit against Justin Beckett; one of the owners of LiveWell. To avoid inaccurate information from being spread, it is worth summarizing that incident. The lawsuit involved Mr. Beckett but was not related to the LiveWell operation. What follows is a brief summary along with web links for those who wish more detailed information.

In the early 1990’s, Mr. Beckett joined Sloan Financial Group. Inc. which was headed by Maceo Sloan. (If you are doing a web search, don’t confuse this with Sloan Financial Group LLC; which is a totally different entity.) Around 1995 to 1997, Mr. Beckett and Mr. Sloan formed the New Africa Opportunity Fund; its purpose being to act as a venture capital investment fund to invest in business opportunities in South Africa and neighboring countries. It was funded to the tune of $120 million by OPIC (a government agency) and a number of large institutional investors.

From there, the business structures get very complicated. With some diligent reading and drawing of diagrams, they can be understood; but it is not worth detailing here. The simple version is that Mr. Beckett was named President of New Africa Management; and that entity’s purpose was to manage the New Africa Opportunity Fund and oversee its investments; for which it received fees.

Around 2000, according to this lawsuit, it was alleged that numerous improprieties came to light within New Africa Management; with the result that Mr. Beckett and his management team were sued by the fund. Here is a summary news article from 2001:  March 5, 2001 Article    ( If that link does not work, try this:  Article Text)

The allegations within the lawsuit against Mr. Beckett and his associates were pretty wide ranging and, at a minimum, make for interesting reading. The best summary of the lawsuit which I could find was at the beginning of a 2003 appellate court decision that dealt only with the defendants’ attempts to force the dispute to be settled through arbitration. Here is the link to that decision:  Appellate Decision

As you will see if you read that decision, the allegations included, among other items, misappropriation, falsifying information, fraud, and extortion. Please note that these were allegations, and, as noted below, the case never went to trial. Therefore, none of the allegations were presented or proven in a court proceeding.

According to the appellate decision summary, Mr. Beckett was forced to resign from New Africa Management, and his associates were terminated. The attempt to force the dispute into arbitration failed; at which point the lawsuit should have proceeded to trial. However, the only subsequent reference I could find was a magazine article which said that the case was settled confidentially in 2006. Here is a link to that article:  July 10, 2006 Article

In fact, the above article gives a brief but very good summary of the entire affair.  And it comes closest to explaining the final outcome of the New Africa Opportunity Fund.  The then current manager stated that the fund had no value and was “expected to have no value” when it closed out.  I can find no further reference on-line to either the existence or disposition of the fund.

Defining Family Care Homes

In reading this, please keep in mind that I am not an expert in this area, nor am I a lawyer. What I have done is investigate state web sites; and I will simply be summarizing what I read there. While I have done my best, I can’t completely guarantee the accuracy of this information.

LiveWell is proposing a “family care home”. This is defined as an assisted living facility with two to six beds which does not require skilled nursing. A facility with seven or more beds is called an “adult care home” and is subject to different requirements.

A family care home apparently does not require a Certificate of Need; in other words, approval from the state that there is a need for such a facility in that geographic area. An adult care home does require that certificate. But it appears to me that the concept of “need” is not considered in the family care home licensing process. There is a regulation which states that counties have the option of enforcing a one half mile restriction between family care homes. However, Chatham County has not adopted that regulation.

It appears that the application and approval process starts at the county level and then is directed by the state in accordance with state requirements and regulations. The license is issued by the state assuming that all requirements have been met. There is no approval board of any sort, nor is there any public notice to neighboring properties. However, license applications are a matter of public record.

At a meeting with several residents, Diane Beckett indicated that they had not yet applied for a license and that the process would take around one year. According to the POA Board, Justin Beckett told them the licensing process would take “several months”. Information on the state web site indicates that the time required to obtain a license is pretty much dependent on how long it takes to address the checklist of requirements; which, in turn, is probably dependent on how quickly the applicant responds.

Here is the state web site dealing with licensing procedures:  NC-DHSR

For those that are interested, there are two relevant sections of the North Carolina General Statutes that refer to family care homes and therefore might be worth reading. Here are links to both:

NC Chapter 168: This section deals with the definition and rights of persons with disabilities. Article 3 deals with family care homes. Section 168-21 defines family care homes, and I believe Section168-22 is the law which says that family care homes are allowed in any residential neighborhood.

NC Chapter 131: This section outlines requirements and regulations for adult care homes. It is pretty detailed and probably not worth reading unless looking for something very specific.

Lastly, I was referred to a document dealing with the issue of zoning and family care homes. It is well researched and, if read carefully, very informative. It references Section 168 and gives understandable examples. Here is the link for those who are interested:  Group Homes – Zoning