Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	NOTE 8. Commitments and Contingencies *Commitments* The Company guarantees from time-to-time obligations of its wholly-owned subsidiaries. Contingencies The Company’s operating results and financial condition are dependent on the ability of its tenants to meet their lease obligations to us. We are not currently a party to any material legal proceedings, that are not covered by insurance and expected to be resolved within policy limits, other than the following: In March 2020, Joseph Schwartz, Rosie Schwartz and certain companies owned by them filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Moishe Gubin, Michael Blisko, the Predecessor Company and 21 of its subsidiaries, as well as the operators of 17 of the facilities operated at our properties. The complaint was related to the Predecessor Company’s acquisition of 16 properties located in Arkansas and Kentucky that were completed between May 2018 and April 2019 and the attempt to purchase an additional five properties located in Massachusetts. The complaint was dismissed by the Court in 2020 on jurisdictional grounds. The plaintiffs did not file an appeal with respect to this action, and the time for an appeal has expired. In August 2020, Joseph Schwartz, Rosie Schwartz and several companies controlled by them filed a second complaint in the Circuit Court in Pulaski County, Arkansas. The second complaint had nearly identical claims as the federal case, but was limited to matters related to the Predecessor Company’s acquisition of properties located in Arkansas. The sellers, which were affiliates of Skyline Health Care, had encountered financial difficulties and requested the Predecessor Company to acquire these properties. The defendants have filed an answer denying the plaintiffs’ claims and asserting counterclaims based on breach of contract. This case has been dismissed without prejudice In January 2021, Joseph Schwartz, Rosie Schwartz and certain companies owned by them filed a third complaint in Illinois state court in Cook County, Illinois, which has nearly identical claims to the initial federal case but was limited to claims related to the Kentucky and Massachusetts properties. The complaint has not been properly served on any of the defendants, and, accordingly, the defendants did not respond to the complaint. On January 11, 2023, the Cook County Circuit Court granting a motion to quash service on all defendants. In March 2023, the plaintiffs filed a new complaint and again attempted to serve it on the defendants. It is the defendants’ position that service was (once again, potentially) defective and sought a dismissal of the matter for want of prosecution by Joseph Schwartz, Rosie Schwartz and certain companies owned by them. The dismissal was granted, but has been appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court, and now has been dismissed. In April of 2024, Joseph Schwartz, Rosie Schwartz and several companies controlled by them filed a third complaint in the Circuit Court in Pulaski County, Arkansas. This third complaint had nearly identical claims as the federal case and the Illinois state court matter. STRAWBERRY FIELDS REIT, INC. and Subsidiaries NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS NOTE 8. Commitments and Contingencies (Cont.) In each of these complaints, the plaintiffs asserted claims for fraud, breach of contract and rescission arising out of the defendants’ alleged failure to perform certain post-closing obligations under the purchase contracts. We have potential direct exposure for these claims because the subsidiaries of the Predecessor Company that were named as defendants are now subsidiaries of the Operating Partnership. Additionally, the Operating Partnership is potentially liable for the claims made against Moishe Gubin, Michael Blisko and the Predecessor Company pursuant to the provisions of the contribution agreement, under which the Operating Partnership assumed all of the liabilities of the Predecessor Company and agreed to indemnify the Predecessor Company and its affiliates for such liabilities. We and the named defendants believe that the claims set forth in the complaints are without merit. The named defendants intend to vigorously defend the litigation and to assert counterclaims against the plaintiffs based on their failure to fulfill their obligations under the purchase contracts, interim management agreement, and operations transfer agreements. We believe this matter will be resolved without a material adverse effect to the Company. As noted above, the March 2020 and January 2021 and April 2024 complaints also related to the Predecessor Company’s planned acquisition of five properties located in Massachusetts. A subsidiary of the Predecessor Company purchased loans related to these properties in 2018 for a price of $7.74 million with the expectation that the subsidiaries would acquire title to the properties and the loans would be retired. The subsidiary subsequently advanced $3.1 million under the loans to satisfy other liabilities related to the properties. The planned acquisition/settlement with the sellers/owners and/borrowers was not consummated because the underlying tenants of the properties surrendered their licenses to operate healthcare facilities on these properties. The Predecessor Company intends to institute legal proceedings to collect the outstanding amount of these loans and to assert related claims against the sellers and their principals for the unpaid principal balances as well as protective advances and collection costs. In connection with enforcing their rights, in July 2022, the Company foreclosed, and (as lender) sold four of the five properties at auction for the total amount of $4.4 million. In December 2022, the Company took title on the fifth property with an estimated fair value of $1.2 million.

Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2024

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

NOTE 8. Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments

The Company guarantees from time-to-time obligations of its wholly-owned subsidiaries.

Contingencies

The Company’s operating results and financial condition are dependent on the ability of its tenants to meet their lease obligations to us.

We are not currently a party to any material legal proceedings, that are not covered by insurance and expected to be resolved within policy limits, other than the following:

In March 2020, Joseph Schwartz, Rosie Schwartz and certain companies owned by them filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Moishe Gubin, Michael Blisko, the Predecessor Company and 21 of its subsidiaries, as well as the operators of 17 of the facilities operated at our properties. The complaint was related to the Predecessor Company’s acquisition of 16 properties located in Arkansas and Kentucky that were completed between May 2018 and April 2019 and the attempt to purchase an additional five properties located in Massachusetts. The complaint was dismissed by the Court in 2020 on jurisdictional grounds. The plaintiffs did not file an appeal with respect to this action, and the time for an appeal has expired.

In August 2020, Joseph Schwartz, Rosie Schwartz and several companies controlled by them filed a second complaint in the Circuit Court in Pulaski County, Arkansas. The second complaint had nearly identical claims as the federal case, but was limited to matters related to the Predecessor Company’s acquisition of properties located in Arkansas. The sellers, which were affiliates of Skyline Health Care, had encountered financial difficulties and requested the Predecessor Company to acquire these properties. The defendants have filed an answer denying the plaintiffs’ claims and asserting counterclaims based on breach of contract. This case has been dismissed without prejudice

In January 2021, Joseph Schwartz, Rosie Schwartz and certain companies owned by them filed a third complaint in Illinois state court in Cook County, Illinois, which has nearly identical claims to the initial federal case but was limited to claims related to the Kentucky and Massachusetts properties. The complaint has not been properly served on any of the defendants, and, accordingly, the defendants did not respond to the complaint. On January 11, 2023, the Cook County Circuit Court granting a motion to quash service on all defendants. In March 2023, the plaintiffs filed a new complaint and again attempted to serve it on the defendants. It is the defendants’ position that service was (once again, potentially) defective and sought a dismissal of the matter for want of prosecution by Joseph Schwartz, Rosie Schwartz and certain companies owned by them. The dismissal was granted, but has been appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court, and now has been dismissed.

In April of 2024, Joseph Schwartz, Rosie Schwartz and several companies controlled by them filed a third complaint in the Circuit Court in Pulaski County, Arkansas. This third complaint had nearly identical claims as the federal case and the Illinois state court matter.

STRAWBERRY FIELDS REIT, INC. and Subsidiaries

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

NOTE 8. Commitments and Contingencies (Cont.)

In each of these complaints, the plaintiffs asserted claims for fraud, breach of contract and rescission arising out of the defendants’ alleged failure to perform certain post-closing obligations under the purchase contracts. We have potential direct exposure for these claims because the subsidiaries of the Predecessor Company that were named as defendants are now subsidiaries of the Operating Partnership. Additionally, the Operating Partnership is potentially liable for the claims made against Moishe Gubin, Michael Blisko and the Predecessor Company pursuant to the provisions of the contribution agreement, under which the Operating Partnership assumed all of the liabilities of the Predecessor Company and agreed to indemnify the Predecessor Company and its affiliates for such liabilities. We and the named defendants believe that the claims set forth in the complaints are without merit. The named defendants intend to vigorously defend the litigation and to assert counterclaims against the plaintiffs based on their failure to fulfill their obligations under the purchase contracts, interim management agreement, and operations transfer agreements. We believe this matter will be resolved without a material adverse effect to the Company.

As noted above, the March 2020 and January 2021 and April 2024 complaints also related to the Predecessor Company’s planned acquisition of five properties located in Massachusetts. A subsidiary of the Predecessor Company purchased loans related to these properties in 2018 for a price of $7.74 million with the expectation that the subsidiaries would acquire title to the properties and the loans would be retired. The subsidiary subsequently advanced $3.1 million under the loans to satisfy other liabilities related to the properties. The planned acquisition/settlement with the sellers/owners and/borrowers was not consummated because the underlying tenants of the properties surrendered their licenses to operate healthcare facilities on these properties.

The Predecessor Company intends to institute legal proceedings to collect the outstanding amount of these loans and to assert related claims against the sellers and their principals for the unpaid principal balances as well as protective advances and collection costs. In connection with enforcing their rights, in July 2022, the Company foreclosed, and (as lender) sold four of the five properties at auction for the total amount of $4.4 million. In December 2022, the Company took title on the fifth property with an estimated fair value of $1.2 million.