New York Real Estate Lawyers Blog

March 20, 2015

The Disposition of Housing of the Deceased

Many people who pass away also leave behind the place in which they resided. The housing could be a rental apartment, a cooperative or condominium unit, or a house. The deceased may not necessarily have resided in the property immediately before death if they went to assisted living or a nursing home. This blog post will address the legal and practical matters arising from housing of the deceased.

If the person lived in a rental apartment, it remains to be determined whether the rental was rent-regulated or not. A rent-regulated apartment could be either rent controlled or rent stabilized and is generally found in New York City. If a surviving family member wants to continue residing in the rent-regulated apartment, he may wish to allege that he has succession rights and has the legal right to continue to live in the apartment. When the unit is not rent-regulated, the surviving family member may wish to negotiate a surrender of lease and return of any security deposit, in exchange for the prompt removal of the possessions of the deceased. Most landlords do not aggressively pursue eviction in this scenario, if the surviving family member in good faith is acting reasonably efficiently in clearing out the apartment. However, if the death occurred in the apartment and was under gruesome circumstances, the landlord may seek to have out-of-the-ordinary cleaning expenses paid by the family.

When the departed individual lived in a cooperative or condominium apartment, monthly maintenance or common charges will continue to accrue. The representative of the estate should request a delay in the submission of any default notices, pending the representative’s access to assets as needed to make such payments. So long as the cooperative or condominium board is convinced that the representative has duly and promptly applied for Letters Testamentary or Letters of Administration, additional time to obtain access to assets will usually be granted. In no event do we recommend that the estate representative pay such charges from her own personal account.

March 12, 2015

Foreclosure Settlement Conferences in New York State

By Weiss & Weiss

Our firm handles many cases in which the client is being sued for foreclosure of their property. In general, a foreclosure lawsuit involves a mortgage loan which has been recorded as a lien against real property, such as a house or condominium unit. Please note that cooperative apartments involve ownership of shares in the cooperative corporation, and therefore are not subject to the judicial foreclosure process.

Due to the large volume of foreclosures in New York in recent times, and the desire to protect homeowners, a law was passed in New York State several years ago requiring mandatory settlement conferences in residential foreclosure actions. This requirement does not apply to commercial foreclosures, nor to situations where the owner of the property being foreclosed does not reside at the property.

The purpose of this law is to attempt to resolve foreclosure cases before extensive litigation occurs. The law requires that, after the party foreclosing (the lender) files proof with the Court that the borrower was served with the foreclosure lawsuit, the Court must hold a mandatory settlement conference within sixty (60) days of such filing. In general, the Court will issue a written notice to all parties advising them of the date, time, and location of the settlement conference. It is important to advise your attorney if you receive such a written notice, so that they will be able to attend the conference on your behalf.

March 6, 2015

Managing Disputes Concerning Fixtures and Personal Property in New York Real Estate Closings

By Weiss & Weiss

Many parties to real estate transactions focus not only on the house or the apartment that is involved in the transaction, but also on fixtures and items of personal property. Should a buyer expect that all lighting fixtures are included in the deal? What if a seller wants to take certain items with him? This post will address these issues.

In New York, generally a seller will remove all easily movable items from the apartment or house being sold. These items include furniture, clothing, personal articles and the like. Of course, a buyer will want the seller to remove these items before closing and will be justified in refusing to close until the premises is in “broom clean” condition, as is required in the standard contract. Appliances, such as the refrigerator and stove, are to remain in the premises, as is covered in most standard contracts that we negotiate on behalf of our clients.

Fixtures may not as obvious. A fixture is an item that is attached to the wall, floor or ceiling. A built-in bookcase is not furniture to be removed by the seller, as it is attached to the wall. Chandeliers, wall sconces and other lighting fixtures are expected to remain after closing. There are cases when a seller wants to keep a particular fixture after closing or other cases where a buyer wants to make sure that a beautiful chandelier is not removed by the seller.

February 25, 2015

Debts of the Deceased

By Weiss & Weiss

Every person who dies, whether wealthy or not, will owe money. Whether there is a credit card balance outstanding or estate taxes due to the State of New York, most people will leave this world with a financial obligation of some type. The questions to be addressed in this blog post involve how the fiduciary of the estate should address such debts and whether the fiduciary is personally responsible for the debts. Also, should debts of the deceased be deducted from estate proceeds before distribution to beneficiaries?

The first step is to analyze the types of potential debts. There are secured and unsecured debts. Secured debts are collateralized, such as a mortgage recorded against the house in which the deceased lived, or a car lease. An example of an unsecured debt would be a credit card balance with Visa, Mastercard and the like. Other common unsecured financial obligations include funeral expenses, administration expenses of the estate, estate taxes due to the state or federal government and real estate taxes on property owned by the deceased. Of course, ordinary bills from utilities and doctors will most likely be received.

The fiduciary of an estate in New York is called an Executor if there was a Will, or an Administrator if there was not a Will. Such a fiduciary is charged with collecting all assets of the estate, paying all legitimate obligations, and distributing the balance, if any, to the beneficiaries of the estate. Being a fiduciary is a significant responsibility. Provided that the fiduciary acts ethically and in good faith, he will have no personal obligation for financial obligations of the estate.

February 12, 2015

Recovery of Attorney’s Fees in Landlord-Tenant Actions in New York

By Weiss & Weiss

One of the most frequently asked questions when our firm meets with a new client relates to the awarding of attorney’s fees. Many of our landlord-tenant clients ask us whether they can recover their attorney’s fees in Court from the other party in the litigation. The answer to this question is not a simple one, and this blog post will answer under what circumstances a party may recover their attorney’s fees from the other party, whether in a landlord-tenant litigation, or other type of case.

The general rule in most United States based lawsuits is that all parties pay their own attorney’s fees, regardless of the outcome of the litigation. This is the standard rule in the U.S., although, in other countries, the loser of the litigation is often obligated to pay the attorney’s fees of the prevailing party.

However, the general rule in the U.S., and, more specifically, in New York State, is subject to certain exceptions. Under these exceptions, which we will discuss, the recovery of attorney’s fees from the adversarial side in litigation may sometimes occur. The first exception is when there is a written contract between the parties that allows for the recovery of attorney fees in litigation. For example, a contract clause may state that if a party defaults in their obligations under a contract, and the other party is obligated to bring a Court action to recover damages, and prevails in that action, then they are allowed to recover attorney’s fees. Careful review of any such contract clause would be necessary to determine whether attorney’s fees would be recoverable.

January 28, 2015

For Sale By Owner

By Weiss & Weiss

Our attorneys handle many real estate transactions on behalf of our clients each year. Most clients selling their houses, cooperative or condominium units use the services of a licensed real estate agent. Other sellers chose to sell without the use of such a professional. These transactions are known as for sale by owner (“FSBO”). While we interact with real estate agents on a regular basis, it is not the purpose of this blog post to argue for the use of a real estate agent in your transaction. Our purpose is to distinguish the nature of our legal representation in transactions with and without real estate agents.

The sales price matters to the seller, but has no bearing on our legal work. The preparation of the contract will just involve the insertion of the agreed offer price. However, if a seller retains the services of an experienced real estate agent, he will potentially avoid two situations regarding the price. First, a seller may list the property at too high a price, which would impede viable offers being made. The real estate agent will know the market and be aware of the realistic price at which the property is to be offered. Second, the real estate agent may also ensure that the property is not offered at a price that is lower than the seller should receive in this market.

Sellers do not want to experience the delay of their transaction due to a property or title defect that could have been resolved. For instance, it is not unusual for a seasoned real estate agent to view the applicable municipal records to confirm that all improvements have been properly permitted and that a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for the premises. Of course, there is nothing to prevent the homeowner for conducting such a search. Whether the real estate agent or the homeowner conducts such a search is immaterial. However, it is important to be aware as early in the process as to whether such issues exist, so that they are resolved to allow for the timely closing anticipated by the parties.

January 8, 2015

Legal Issues Relating to Subtenants in New York State

By Weiss & Weiss

First, we would like to wish all followers of our blog a happy and healthy 2015. We look forward to continued successful legal outcomes for all of our clients in the New Year.

Our copy of Black’s law dictionary defines a subtenant as “one who leases all or part of the rented premises from the original lessee for a term less than that held by the latter.” What this means is that, ordinarily, a tenant rents premises from a landlord, who is usually the owner of the property. The tenant may, in turn, rent her interest as a lessee to another party. That other party is generally known as a subtenant.

Of course, subletting a property to a subtenant creates many legal issues relating to the landlord-tenant relationship, which we will address in this post. The first issue is whether the tenant has the legal right to sublet the space to a subtenant. The answer to this question is usually found in the lease between the landlord and the over-tenant. The lease may expressly forbid subletting. In that case, the over-tenant is in breach of the lease if they sublet the space. In the alternative, the lease may allow subletting, but only with the permission of the landlord. Some leases will state that such permission is “not to be unreasonably withheld.” In such situations, we recommend obtaining the landlord’s consent in writing. That way, there can be no misunderstanding regarding whether the landlord has consented to a subtenant. Finally, the lease may be silent as to subletting. In such instances, courts have generally held that the subletting is not a breach of the lease and can be allowed.

December 5, 2014

An Estate Dispute Involving the Fine Line between Lent or Gifted Artwork and Bequests Under a Will

By Weiss & Weiss

Maurice Sendak was a beloved children’s book author and illustrator whose death two years ago has raised multiple issues to be discussed in this blog post. During his life, he had a close professional affiliation with the Rosenbach Museum and Library in Philadelphia, whereby he lent a vast majority of his books and illustrations for viewing by the general public. He also had a caretaker who managed his personal affairs for decades and was very knowledgeable about his preferences. Mr. Sendak’s Will provided that his caretaker would be one of three executors. It also left some valuable original book manuscripts to the Rosenbach and established a foundation. It was his expressed wish in the Will that the foundation retrieve the works that were on loan to the Rosenbach and display them in the house in which he lived for many decades. The house was to be developed as a study center. We have written another blog post concerning stipulations on bequests that is reminiscent of this situation. After his death, the three executors sought to retrieve the works on loan to the Rosenbach in accordance with Mr. Sendak’s wishes. The Rosenbach objected and commenced litigation against the estate on several grounds to be discussed.

The Rosenbach’s attorneys objected to the caretaker serving as executor. Mr. Sendak had the foresight to appoint two other people to serve jointly as executor, although this was not legally necessary. Testators have wide latitude in the appointment of executors. Generally, even an estate beneficiary does not have cause to object to the testator’s designation of executor. Although some executors may have had a “confidential relationship” with the deceased, such as a clergyman or doctor, a confidential relationship does not on its own disqualify an executor. In this instance, the caretaker had a long standing relationship with the deceased, making her a natural choice to serve. Another objection was that she was unsophisticated in business matters and not suited to her position. In having two other individuals serve jointly, Mr. Sendak may have considered that the caretaker was best to dispose of works due to her personal knowledge while the other executors may have been better suited to the business matters to be confronted by the estate.

Although these factors do not seem to be present in this case, executors can be disqualified for particular reasons. Executors are fiduciaries who owe a duty to preserve estate assets and not engage in self-dealing. For instance, if the caretaker was found to have taken the artwork for her own use and sale for her own benefit, estate beneficiaries could approach the Court and make a formal legal request for her removal as executor. Further, an accounting procedure could be commenced to require the executor to demonstrate the proper collection and disbursement of estate assets.

November 18, 2014

New Court Ruling in New York Relating to Disputes over Religious Institutions

By Weiss & Weiss

A recent case decided by a New York Appellate Court relates to a dispute over governing and control of a Buddhist Temple. To summarize, the Master of the Temple, Mew Fung Chen, excommunicated 517 members over a dispute relating to control of the Temple, which had locations in both Brooklyn and Manhattan. At a special meeting, the Board of the Temple voted to close the Manhattan Temple and excommunicate the followers of an alleged “rogue monk,” Master Ming Tung. Ming Tung’s followers constituted a majority of the congregation at the time of the excommunication.

Ming Tung filed a lawsuit in Supreme Court, New York County seeking to invalidate the results of the special meeting. The lawsuit also sought to have a Court-ordered new meeting, which would be monitored by a Court-appointed official. Obviously, with a majority of the membership, Ming Tung’s followers would likely have taken control of the Buddhist Temple had such a new meeting been ordered.

The Supreme Court (in New York State, this is the trial court, or lowest level of Court) initially granted the motion of Ming Tung and his followers for injunctive relief. This relief stayed the excommunication and ordered that an annual membership meeting be held, at which all members, including the excommunicated members, could be present and vote on the future of the Temple. However, the defendant, the China Buddhist Association, appealed the decision to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, and the First Judicial Department reversed the trial Court’s decision.

November 7, 2014

How to Stage a Takeover of Your Coop or Condo Board

By Weiss & Weiss

Board members of cooperative and condominium buildings are hard working volunteers who are subject to what may be undeserved criticism. In other cases, a board may be treating a particular unit owner unfairly or there may be a general sense among neighbors that the board is doing a poor job. Our firm receives inquiries from such unit owners, either on their own behalf or as representatives of a group of unit owners that are “out of power,” as to our recommendations.

If efforts to influence existing board members continue to be unsuccessful, our attorneys will discuss the consideration of a “takeover” of the board. This strategy works best when more than one unit owner is interested in this project. It is prudent for our attorneys to review your building’s governing documents, such as the By-Laws and Proprietary Lease in a cooperative, in order to determine the rules for conducting annual shareholders meetings in your building. It should be noted that, in some cases, the existing board has even failed to call annual meetings for several years, leaving the existing board in power. In such a situation, we will review the governing documents for the procedure for the calling of an annual meeting to determine and follow the procedure required.

Once the existing board has legally noticed the annual meeting or the insurgent group has legally demanded an annual meeting, campaigning can begin. Although feelings can be hurt, it is not improper to approach unit owners in person or in writing to represent the position of the person running for office and to request attendance at the meeting or the delivery of a proxy to the soliciting person containing the vote requested. Our attorneys also advise on the particulars of proxies being solicited. For instance, the incumbent board may only list their suggested candidates, as is legally permitted. However, unit owners may be advised that other candidates may be indicated on the proxy and information may be provided as to whether all votes can be allocated for only one candidate if desired, depending upon the specific wording of your building’s By-Laws. It is a matter of style as to whether names are to be included on written materials, as we are prepared to advise our clients of this issue for their particular circumstances. Those campaigning should be wary about potential libel and slander claims, which could give rise to a lawsuit if written or verbal statements are inaccurate.