Cooperative and Condominium

November 12, 2015

The Online Conduct of Cooperative and Condominium Disputes

With the prevalent use of the internet, grievances against cooperative and condominium boards can spread like wildfire. The means used may be standard e-mail forwarded to all unit owners, a specifically developed Facebook or Google chat page, a publically accessible website, or another type of private intranet system. The New York Times recently published an article concerning the airing of disagreements online with an audience of all unit owners and the implications. In the past, if a neighbor had a complaint, she would approach one of the board members individually and directly, so that all unit owners would not be aware of the grievance. As an alternative, it is almost expected that a unit owner will raise concerns loudly and perhaps not so politely during the annual meeting. Such concerns will be addressed in front of all unit owners present.

Now it is not uncommon for unit owners to have a day-to-day online community, allowing for constant communication of all matters. Online discussions may concern such matters as whether a neighbor is willing to watch a pet while someone is away, whether someone wants to buy unneeded furniture or more serious matters concerning how the building is being run. The board may be publically attacked for building conditions or for the manner in which a financial transaction was handled. Modern online communities make it almost too easy for unhappy unit owners to gather strength. Some proponents argue that such an online community encourages transparency of the board. The board is continually required to state and justify their actions. Even though the board is legally required to be responsive to all unit owners and must follow the business judgment rule , the current expectation that every action of the board should be known and debated among all unit owners is likely to diminish the authority of a current board.

With the potential reduced authority of a board, the takeover of a board is a potential concern. Opponents of such online communities argue that such communities are developed merely for the purpose of such a takeover. Using the online method as an easily disseminated platform, it is easier than ever for dissident groups to develop allies and arrange for other unit owners to elect them to the board. Once opinions are readily shared, the slate of dissident candidates likewise develops more easily than in the past.

October 29, 2015

Evictions and “Stuff” Left Behind by Tenants in New York

By Weiss & Weiss

Prior blog posts have discussed the possibility of terminating a lease prior to its legal end date. However, in a residential setting, such a situation is not always cut and dried. If there is no formal document, executed by both parties, terminating the lease, then the lease between the parties may still control the situation. This blog post will examine the different possibilities, and advise both landlords and tenants regarding the disposition of property left behind by a tenant.

Our first example would be when a tenant simply leaves the premises, but does not advise the landlord in writing that he is moving out. In such situations, the tenant may also leave behind personal property at the rented premises. The first question is whether the tenant has legally abandoned the property. If the tenant does not return the keys to the landlord (or their attorney) and state in writing that they are surrendering possession, then they are still considered a legal tenant and the original lease will still control the landlord-tenant relationship.

Even if it appears to the landlord that the tenant has moved out, in the absence of a formal surrender, the landlord will still have to legally evict the tenant. This means service of a Notice of Petition and Petition of Eviction, obtaining a warrant of eviction in Court, and then having the City Marshal or Sheriff serve and execute the warrant. This will give the landlord legal possession and allow the landlord to dispose of the personal property left behind by the tenant. If the landlord decides not to follow this legal procedure, the tenant could return, and claim that they did not formally surrender possession. The landlord in such a case could be liable for an illegal eviction, as well as the cost of replacing the disposed-of property.

October 15, 2015

Insurance Disputes in New York Concerning Damages to Real Estate

By Weiss & Weiss

As many of us know, insurance carriers are most profitable when they collect premiums and resist paying claims. Some of our clients consult us when they have a legitimate insurance claim that is not being paid, so that we can interpret their insurance policy and pursue the insurance company to properly manage the claim. There may be a casualty event in a cooperative or condominium building where it is not clear whether the building’s or individual owner’s insurance carrier is responsible for the claim. This post will address the legal issues that arise with respect to insurance claims pertaining to real estate.

Our attorneys recommend to individuals purchasing apartment units that they procure their own insurance policies, whether or not the building requires same. Otherwise, damages within the walls of the apartment unit need to be paid out-of-pocket by the unit owner. When a unit owner has her own insurance, such policy will cover damage within the unit, such as water damage to interior finishes and painting and wallpaper that are not covered by the building’s insurance. Further, our firm recommends that contractors engaging in apartment renovations to common areas of the building or to individual units demonstrate adequate insurance coverage for damages that may occur during the renovation.

The following is a typical scenario involving the cooperative and condominium boards or individual unit owners that we represent. A casualty event such as a severe ice and snow storm causes ice dams to appear in the gutters of the building. Such ice dams eventually melt, causing mold within the walls between apartment units and water leaks within specific units. How do the applicable insurance policies manage the resulting insurance claims? The entire building will most likely have insurance coverage. However, most buildings in their proprietary leases or bylaws provide that building insurance only covers common areas and damages within the walls of the building between units. As a general guideline, if the repair necessitates the removal of the wall in order to make the repair, then it is the responsibility of the building, rather than the unit owner. Therefore, the building’s insurance should pay the claim.

October 8, 2015

Settlement of Partition Actions in New York State

By Weiss & Weiss

Prior posts on this blog have discussed the general aspects of property partition actions. A partition action arises when there are two or more owners of real property, and the co-owners cannot agree on the disposition of the property. The property may be residential or commercial in nature. This blog post will discuss possible out-of-court resolutions to a partition action.

A partition action may be brought by any of the co-owners to force a sale of the property, with the proceeds being divided among the owners according to their percentage of ownership. However, it is a fact that most lawsuits are settled prior to trial or another resolution by a Court. In a partition action, there are several alternatives to explore when deciding to resolve a case without the need for further Court intervention.

The first alternative would be for the parties to agree to sell the property to a third party who is not one of the current co-owners. In such a situation, the co-owners should agree on sale terms, and, in most situations, hire a professional real estate broker to list and show the property in question. The parties would also agree to share the costs of the broker, which is usually a set percentage of the sales price. It is advisable at this stage that a formal written agreement, usually called a “Stipulation of Settlement,” be entered into between the parties. Such an agreement should contain an initial listing price for the property. It should also state that any offer at or above the listing price will be accepted by all of the owners. In the event that the property cannot be sold at or above the listing price, the agreement should also delineate a set period of time in which the parties will attempt to sell the property at the initial listing price, such as three months. After this time period expires, the agreement should state that the listing price will be reduced by a set percentage, such as five percent. This will allow the property to be sold at a price acceptable to all parties, and will prevent any co-owner from refusing to sell the property. Our firm has handled many partition actions and has a standard Stipulation of Settlement that contains the necessary clauses for an effective resolution.

October 2, 2015

The Changes Are Here- New Mortgage Disclosure Rules Effective Date Has Finally Arrived

By Weiss & Weiss

As stated in a prior post , we promised to keep you advised of the progress of intended updates to the mortgage disclosure regulations. Due to comments from the loan industry, the effective date of the regulations was pushed back from August 1 to October 3, 2015. The delay in the implementation allowed for certain revisions to the intended regulations and allowed for the loan industry to engage in the task of preparing to close loans consistently with the new regulations.

If you are applying for a residential mortgage after October 3, 2015, these revisions will apply to your loan. Within three business days after your loan application is submitted, a Loan Estimate is to be provided to the borrower. This document will provide the loan amount, interest rate, monthly payment, estimated taxes and insurance and anticipated cash required to close.

The major concept behind the new regulations is that additional charges to the borrower of any type are not to be disclosed for the first time at the closing. Collection and sharing of accurate data concerning charges among those professional partners involved in the closing is crucial. Also, attorneys in New York will need to get accustomed to preparing the final financial details of closings much more in advance than is currently typical. Those attorneys who do not conduct many real estate closings may not be abreast of these developments and may not be prepared to act.

August 20, 2015

Is the House Still for Sale?

By Weiss & Weiss

As we enter the last days of summer, this author can’t help but notice that some houses for sale seem to have languished on the market for months unsold. This post will address the practical and legal ramifications of unsold houses. Because “For Sale” signs from real estate agents cannot be posted on cooperative or condominium apartments, requiring potential purchasers to search real estate listings online or in the newspaper, this post will address houses only.

In the suburbs surrounding New York City, most house sales occur with the school calendar in mind. For instance, a seller usually prepares her house to be listed starting in April, so that her buyer signs a contract by June, closes in August, and the buyer’s children can start school in the selected neighborhood in September. When the seller cannot follow this ideal schedule, she is limited to the buyers who are not concerned with the school calendar, which by its nature develops fewer potential buyers. If the property takes too long to sell, Thanksgiving and the holiday season arrive, along with winter weather, making buyers too busy or too uncomfortable to look at houses.

First, we should discuss when a seller is legally committed to sell a particular property to a buyer. In New York, until both parties have signed the contract and the downpayment has been deposited, the seller may enter a contract with any other buyer of his choosing. Our attorneys who are involved in real estate transactions are prepared to act quickly in response to an accepted offer on a property. When representing the seller, draft contracts are sent to the buyer’s attorney usually within a day. Likewise, when representing a buyer, we negotiate the contract and prepare it for signing in a similar timeframe.

August 13, 2015

Stock Transfers After Death

By Weiss & Weiss

It is not unusual for the estate of a deceased person to hold stock as an asset. Stock can take the form of shares held in a publically traded company, such as Target, or shares in a cooperative corporation. Clients often ask us how such shares can be transferred after a person passes away. This post will answer the question.

First, it needs to be determined whether the person had a Will. If there was a Will, there may have been a specific bequest of the stock. This takes the form as follows: “I give all shares that I may hold at the time of my death in Target to my daughter.” If the stock is not addressed specifically, then the residuary clause of the Will manages its disposition. Anything not specifically addressed is left to the party receiving the residuary.

If the person did not have a Will, then the rules of intestacy would dictate who would receive the stock. In New York, Section 4-1.1 of the Estates Trust and Powers Law governs the situation. For instance, if the closest surviving person to the deceased is a child, then the child would inherit the stock under New York law.

July 23, 2015

Breaking Up is Hard to Do- The End of a Real Estate Transaction in New York

By Weiss & Weiss

Real estate transactions can “break up” prior to closing for a variety of reasons. The purchaser may receive a refund of his downpayment depending upon the circumstances. This post will address the legal issues associated with a deal breaking up.

Most contracts of sale contain a mortgage contingency clause. Such a provision provides that if the purchaser applies in good faith for the loan and supplies all information reasonably requested by the lender within the timeframe required by the contract, but is declined for the loan for any reason, the downpayment will be refunded to the purchaser. Readers should also be aware that the buyer may have a loan commitment, but the lender may not have cleared all closing conditions and ultimately may refuse to fund the loan. This situation may also give rise to the buyer’s right to the refund of the downpayment. In a contract without a mortgage contingency clause, the purchaser may be subject to the loss of his downpayment if he does not obtain the necessary funds to close. A qualified attorney should monitor her client, by entering the pertinent dates in a calendar and to request extensions of applicable deadlines should her client not have the loan commitment in the timeframe required by the contract.

Contracts pertaining to cooperative apartments typically contain a condition that the approval of the cooperative’s board of directors to the transaction must be obtained prior to closing. As in a standard mortgage contingency clause, the contract provides for the delivery of the board application package by a particular date, usually ten business days after the fully executed contract is delivered to the buyer’s attorney or ten days after the loan commitment is obtained. Should the board reject the purchaser, the downpayment must be refunded. However, if the buyer missed deadlines for the submission of the package or intentionally failed his appearance in the board interview, the downpayment may potentially be withheld.

July 16, 2015

Evictions and Warrants of Eviction in New York State

By Weiss & Weiss

Many of our clients are landlords who own only one property, such as a single or multi-family house or an apartment. Although they may be renting to a tenant, it is not their primary business or livelihood. As such, our firm is often asked to assist in removing a tenant due to a default under the lease, or due to the expiration of the lease in question. As discussed in a prior blog post, a Court proceeding is necessary in order to gain legal authority to evict a tenant.

The legal document allowing an eviction to occur is known as a warrant or warrant of eviction. It is similar to a judgment, except that instead of stating that a certain sum of money is owed, it states that the landlord has the legal right to evict a tenant. A warrant can be obtained in several ways during a Court proceeding. If the parties agree to settle a landlord-tenant action, the tenant may agree to vacate by a certain date. A condition of such agreement (known as a Stipulation or Stipulation of Settlement) would be that if the tenant does not vacate voluntarily, the landlord is entitled to a warrant of eviction. Often, the agreement will allow the warrant to be issued immediately, but the parties will agree to stay, or delay, enforcement of the warrant until after the date on which the tenant agreed to vacate the premises.

The Stipulation allows the landlord to have a warrant of eviction, but gives the tenant a reasonable amount of time (usually a month or two) in which to vacate. A crucial part of such an agreement is also that the tenant must pay use and occupancy during the period of time between settlement and moving out. Use and occupancy is a legal term which applies to rent paid after the tenant has agreed to surrender possession. The agreement will usually state that if the tenant fails to pay such use and occupancy, the warrant may be executed immediately upon notice of default sent to the tenant, rather than on the later date previously agreed to by the parties.

June 25, 2015

Rent Regulation in New York – The Newest Provisions

By Weiss & Weiss

A recent article in the New York Times describes a tentative deal in Albany to extend the rent regulation laws in New York. Rent regulation in New York exists not only in New York City, but also in other large cities, such as Yonkers and White Plains. To speak generally, rent regulations usually restrict the amount of rent that a landlord can charge for an apartment. In addition, tenants are usually legally entitled to a one or two year lease renewal, subject to certain restrictions. Landlords are permitted to raise the rent a certain percentage per year, subject to an overall threshold of rent.

The proposed deal in Albany would raise the rent at which an apartment can be “de-regulated” from $2,500.00 per month to $2,700.00 per month. What this means is that apartments which rent for more than $2,700.00 per month would no longer be subject to rent regulation, and landlords would be permitted to charge “market rate” for such apartments. In addition, tenants of a de-regulated apartment would lose their right to a renewal lease at a fixed rate of rent increase. For example, if one rented an apartment for $3,000.00 per month for a two year lease, at the end of the two year term, the landlord would be permitted to raise the rent to whatever amount the market could bear. If the tenant does not want to pay the new rent, they would have to vacate the premises.

Because rent stabilized apartments renting for below $2,500.00 (soon to be $2,700.00) a month are likely to be regulated, the landlord under such a system has an incentive to remove such tenants after their current lease expires. If the tenants vacate, the landlord is permitted a “vacancy increase bonus,” which allows them to increase the rent that a new tenant would pay, to an amount greater than the legally permitted increase for the current tenant’s renewal. For this reason, some landlords will make a cash offers to “buy out” tenants of their rent regulated tenancies. Our firm has handled these situations, representing both landlords and tenants in different transactions regarding such buyouts, and we have discussed the specifics of such buyouts in a prior blog post.