Commitments And Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2011
Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies	NOTE 8. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES We believe that we have operated our business so as to qualify as a REIT under Section 856 through 860 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code") and we intend to continue to operate in such a manner, but no assurance can be given that we will be able to qualify at all times. If we qualify as a REIT, we will generally not be subject to federal corporate income taxes on our net income that is currently distributed to our stockholders. This treatment substantially eliminates the "double taxation" (at the corporate and stockholder levels) that typically applies to corporate dividends. Our failure to continue to qualify under the applicable REIT qualification rules and regulations would cause us to owe state and federal income taxes and would have a material adverse impact on our financial position, results of operations and cash flows. In October 2009, we completed a purchase/leaseback transaction with Bickford Senior Living and its affiliates ("Bickford") for $28,250,000. The purchase price was funded from our accumulated cash liquidity and includes $3,000,000 in conditional payments to be made over the next three years based on Bickford's expected achievement of certain operating financial thresholds. No conditional amounts have been paid as of September 30, 2011. In March 2010, we completed a purchase/leaseback transaction with Helix Healthcare ("Helix") for $12,500,000. The purchase price was funded with borrowings from our revolving credit facility and includes $1,000,000 as a conditional payment which is expected to be made in 2011. As described in Note 2, we have agreed to sell six (five remaining) skilled nursing facilities to our current lessee, affiliates of Fundamental. We are committed to finance a portion of the purchase price, not to exceed $8,000,000, with individual loans for each facility to be repaid over a term of five years with interest of 11.5% per annum plus annual increases. As of September 30, 2011, we had pending commitments related to three health care real estate projects: (1) as described in Note 3, in June 2010, we entered into a construction loan commitment to provide up to $13,870,000 for the development and construction of a 70-bed transitional rehabilitation center in Mesa, Arizona; and as of September 30, 2011, we had funded a total of $11,669,000 toward this commitment, (2) one of our leases contains a provision whereby we will fund up to $750,000 of certain capital improvements and operating equipment purchases with the total being added to the base amount from which the lease payment is calculated; during the nine months ended September 30, 2011, we funded $604,000 of this commitment, and (3) we were committed to fund an additional $50,000 on a mortgage note receivable. We believe we have sufficient liquidity to fund these commitments and to finance new investments. The health care facilities in which we have investments of leases or loans are subject to claims and suits in the ordinary course of business. Our lessees and mortgagors have indemnified and will continue to indemnify us against all liabilities arising from the operation of the health care facilities, and will indemnify us against environmental or title problems affecting the real estate underlying such facilities. While there are lawsuits pending against certain of the owners and/or lessees of the health care facilities, management believes that the ultimate resolution of all pending proceedings will have no material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and cash flows. As previously disclosed, in November 2008, the Company was served with a Civil Investigative Demand by the Office of the Tennessee Attorney General ("OTAG"), which indicated that the OTAG was investigating transactions between the Company and three Tennessee nonprofit corporations. NHI has provided OTAG with requested information and documents and has been working with the OTAG with respect to this investigation. The investigation has been resolved with respect to one of the nonprofit corporations; however, NHI does not know whether OTAG will commence any legal proceedings with respect to any transaction with either of the other two nonprofit corporations or, if so, what relief will be sought. As previously disclosed, in 2009, Burt Shearer Trustee, as trustee of the Shearer Family Living Trust, filed a shareholder derivative complaint naming as defendants NHI directors W. Andrew Adams, Robert A. McCabe, Jr., Robert T. Webb, and Ted H. Welch and as a nominal defendant NHI. On September 21, 2010, the Court granted a motion to dismiss the complaint, entered a judgment, and dismissed the action with prejudice. Despite that ruling, the Company's Board received a new demand letter from Mr. Shearer dated October 11, 2010 that again asserted that certain NHI directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties to NHI in connection with its transaction with Care Foundation of America, Inc. ("CFA"). In response, the Company's Board appointed a special committee that on December 6, 2010 made its report and recommendation to the Board. The Board considered the demand and unanimously accepted the special committee's recommendation to reject the demand on the basis that pursuing the proposed claims, in whole or in part, would not be in the best interests of the Company. Mr. Shearer was notified of the Board's determination by letter dated December 13, 2010. On February 3, 2011, Mr. Shearer filed a new derivative shareholder lawsuit (M.D. Tenn. Case No. 3:11-99), making the same claim and allegations as in the action that was dismissed with prejudice. The Company has responded to the new lawsuit by filing a motion to dismiss, in which the Company contends that Mr. Shearer lacks standing to bring the action given the Board's acceptance of the special committee's recommendation. The individual defendants have filed a separate motion to dismiss, in which they contend that the judgment in the first action precludes a subsequent action. Both motions have been fully briefed and are pending before the Court.

NOTE 8. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

We believe that we have operated our business so as to qualify as a REIT under Section 856 through 860 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code") and we intend to continue to operate in such a manner, but no assurance can be given that we will be able to qualify at all times. If we qualify as a REIT, we will generally not be subject to federal corporate income taxes on our net income that is currently distributed to our stockholders. This treatment substantially eliminates the "double taxation" (at the corporate and stockholder levels) that typically applies to corporate dividends. Our failure to continue to qualify under the applicable REIT qualification rules and regulations would cause us to owe state and federal income taxes and would have a material adverse impact on our financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

In October 2009, we completed a purchase/leaseback transaction with Bickford Senior Living and its affiliates ("Bickford") for $28,250,000. The purchase price was funded from our accumulated cash liquidity and includes $3,000,000 in conditional payments to be made over the next three years based on Bickford's expected achievement of certain operating financial thresholds. No conditional amounts have been paid as of September 30, 2011.

In March 2010, we completed a purchase/leaseback transaction with Helix Healthcare ("Helix") for $12,500,000. The purchase price was funded with borrowings from our revolving credit facility and includes $1,000,000 as a conditional payment which is expected to be made in 2011.

As described in Note 2, we have agreed to sell six (five remaining) skilled nursing facilities to our current lessee, affiliates of Fundamental. We are committed to finance a portion of the purchase price, not to exceed $8,000,000, with individual loans for each facility to be repaid over a term of five years with interest of 11.5% per annum plus annual increases.

As of September 30, 2011, we had pending commitments related to three health care real estate projects: (1) as described in Note 3, in June 2010, we entered into a construction loan commitment to provide up to $13,870,000 for the development and construction of a 70-bed transitional rehabilitation center in Mesa, Arizona; and as of September 30, 2011, we had funded a total of $11,669,000 toward this commitment, (2) one of our leases contains a provision whereby we will fund up to $750,000 of certain capital improvements and operating equipment purchases with the total being added to the base amount from which the lease payment is calculated; during the nine months ended September 30, 2011, we funded $604,000 of this commitment, and (3) we were committed to fund an additional $50,000 on a mortgage note receivable. We believe we have sufficient liquidity to fund these commitments and to finance new investments.

The health care facilities in which we have investments of leases or loans are subject to claims and suits in the ordinary course of business. Our lessees and mortgagors have indemnified and will continue to indemnify us against all liabilities arising from the operation of the health care facilities, and will indemnify us against environmental or title problems affecting the real estate underlying such facilities. While there are lawsuits pending against certain of the owners and/or lessees of the health care facilities, management believes that the ultimate resolution of all pending proceedings will have no material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

As previously disclosed, in November 2008, the Company was served with a Civil Investigative Demand by the Office of the Tennessee Attorney General ("OTAG"), which indicated that the OTAG was investigating transactions between the Company and three Tennessee nonprofit corporations. NHI has provided OTAG with requested information and documents and has been working with the OTAG with respect to this investigation. The investigation has been resolved with respect to one of the nonprofit corporations; however, NHI does not know whether OTAG will commence any legal proceedings with respect to any transaction with either of the other two nonprofit corporations or, if so, what relief will be sought.

As previously disclosed, in 2009, Burt Shearer Trustee, as trustee of the Shearer Family Living Trust, filed a shareholder derivative complaint naming as defendants NHI directors W. Andrew Adams, Robert A. McCabe, Jr., Robert T. Webb, and Ted H. Welch and as a nominal defendant NHI. On September 21, 2010, the Court granted a motion to dismiss the complaint, entered a judgment, and dismissed the action with prejudice. Despite that ruling, the Company's Board received a new demand letter from Mr. Shearer dated October 11, 2010 that again asserted that certain NHI directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties to NHI in connection with its transaction with Care Foundation of America, Inc. ("CFA"). In response, the Company's Board appointed a special committee that on December 6, 2010 made its report and recommendation to the Board. The Board considered the demand and unanimously accepted the special committee's recommendation to reject the demand on the basis that pursuing the proposed claims, in whole or in part, would not be in the best interests of the Company. Mr. Shearer was notified of the Board's determination by letter dated December 13, 2010. On February 3, 2011, Mr. Shearer filed a new derivative shareholder lawsuit (M.D. Tenn. Case No. 3:11-99), making the same claim and allegations as in the action that was dismissed with prejudice. The Company has responded to the new lawsuit by filing a motion to dismiss, in which the Company contends that Mr. Shearer lacks standing to bring the action given the Board's acceptance of the special committee's recommendation. The individual defendants have filed a separate motion to dismiss, in which they contend that the judgment in the first action precludes a subsequent action. Both motions have been fully briefed and are pending before the Court.