a thirdsome perhaps?

It seems to me that shareholders who can make a claim that their "quiet enjoyment" is being interfered with could register a complaint with the management company, who could then take action. If people are on the deck at 3AM, that's a clear violation of house rules, so that should be easy enough to address. Best to have the management company address it, though, so that it doesn't become a conflict between shareholders, or a conflict between the board and shareholders.

As for calling the police, that's kind of a tough one if this is happening on private property, I think.

Good luck!

no . dont let it worry you. get on wiith your life. roommate law = you can do nothing.

immediate family is harder to make a fuss about. i think coops need to loosen up all these sorts of rules anyhow.

My parti pris is that boards, or at least some board members, occasionally cross a line between looking out for the best interest of the shareholders and interfering with shareholders. My approach to the situation would be to ask: a) Is the maintenance getting paid on time? b) Is the family member abiding by the house rules? If yes to both of the above, I'm satisfied. The rest doesn't concern me.

Not sure if the roommate law applies here if the shareholder is absent. Even if an immediate family member is occupying the apartment, I think that the primary tenant/shareholder has to be present in order for the roommate to apply. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Oops, the above should read: "I think that the primary tenant/shareholder has to be present in order for the roommate law to apply."

If the name does not appear on the existing lease, it is a sublet.

If they wish to put the name on the lease (shares), they can either gift or sell it, per any applicable proprietary lease and by-laws.

Why anguish?

sorry - roommate law overrides any name on lease clause. If primary resident is around enough ie they have a presence and have not moved to Alaska, then you can do nada if they have one person in the apt. You can ask for their name and you may not ask any other questions. It is a great law.

question: why cant all coops just be forced to turn into condos so we dont have these petty problems?

Yes, you are correct. My assumption was that there was no “shareholder” present in the apartment.

= = = = = = = = = =

Yes convert to condo but the shareholders need to absorb the underlying mortgage(s) of the co-op, which in many cases is a horribly outlandish sum due to fiscal mismanagement and fiduciary responsibility. Sorry for being so strident, but this is my personal observation and view.

Go ahead. But do take note.

Take your underlying mortgage and add any prepayment costs; then divide by the number of units in the co-op. This the average sum (plus or minus) that a unit owner must absorb at the time of conversion, not including any other conversion costs and fees. This amount is above any personal mortgage which the shareholder may have outstanding at the time of the conversion.

Example: A building of 400 units has a $20,000,000 mortgage with a $5,000,000 prepayment penalty, if paid down today. This is $25,000,000 must be absorbed by 400 units at an average of $62,500 per unit. (Again not counting conversion fees and not taking into account the difference in the number of shares for a studio vs. multi-bedroom.)

Oh, if the capital reserves have been deferred or underfunded, there may be another financial hit to the converting shareholders, e.g.: $20,000 per unit to create a comfortable capital reserve fund at the time of conversion.

So now we are $62,500 + $20,000 = $82,500 average cost absorption per unit.

Are you ready to write a check for $82,500, or add it to your new mortgage after you convert you co-op loan, or are you prepared to take a loan for $82,500 if there are no encumbrances on your existing unit?

I'm not against conversion, as a matter of fact I am very pro-conversion, as our building is examining the efficacy of "condo conversion" now, but one needs to enter the arena with eyes open.

Why convert?

Our reason is to unlock the vast financial gain shareholders will realize as the real estate market continually depresses co-op unit prices compared to similar units in a condo, because of the overhanging underlying mortgage and the interview / admissions process.

There are major financial issues in the coop v. condo debate. I realize this but I wonder about what some may consider trivial points and how important they are to coop Shs who are "converted" to condo owners. Examples.

-- The admissions/interview process tells a coop not only how well buyers are to meet financial obligations but also (to a limited degree) how committed and how good a fit they'll be in the coop community. I bet many condo and 1-family home owners would like some further assurance, however limited, about the reasonableness of people who will be their neighbors.

-- Coops have rules that condos don't have. For instance, condos aren't required to have carpets/rugs. Hardwood floors are desirable today, but if you hear high heels, dogs/cats running around, and the sound of every item dropped or dragged across bare wood floors day and night, it can get on your nerves.

-- Condo owners can rent their apts to anyone they want. No admissions/interview process. I used to own a condo and the apt next door was rented. The wife made jewelry at home as a business and the smell of metal and chemicals was awful. The husband was a keyboard player (for weddings/parties, etc.) and he practiced at all hours. He had three keyboards against the wall that adjoined our BR. We asked him to move them to a different spot and he refused. The condo board said there was nothing they could do about it.

These issues again may seem trivial but it's things like this that make enjoyment of your home more difficult, especially in smaller buildings where you see neighbors all the time, where apts are close together or where walls are thin and every sound can be heard. Living in NYC isn't always easy but at least coops have somewhat more control over how easy or difficult it has to be.

Just expressing an opinion.

Yes condo owners can rent, but limitations can be set, e.g.: one must own their apartment for one year before renting. And there is a rental fee imposed by the condo association. Also, no more than nn% of the units can be rented at any one time. Limits can be set, e.g.: no more than a two year rental without renewals.

Carpets can be required as we move the exiting proprietary lease ands bylaws to a condo association, per our attorney. So, the carpet argument may not be entirely valid, unless one has more information.

Condo purchaser qualification vs. co-op purchaser qualification can be a bit challenging. Out thought is that condo prices are typically substantially higher than the co-op prices. Thus, those who can pay outright have the wherewithal to pay maintenance and taxes. Those taking condo mortgages will be screened by the banks.

As for noise and objectionable conduct or odors, that’s a good one, and I’ll ask our attorney.

Thanks much.

Lots of good points here. A few more:

(1) During the conversion, everyone who has a coop mortgage will have to pay it off and get a condo mortgage. This will typically cost each shareholder several thousand dollars and considerable headaches.

(2) There is no Warranty of Habitability in a condo. Many condo owners have found this out to their dismay.

(3) Given the relaxed lending standards of the subprime mortgage crisis, and the fact that a condo board has only a right of first refusal on a sale, the chances of an owner defaulting on monthly charges is higher in a condo than in a co-op.

(4) At least one source I've read claims that a coop-to-condo conversion must be treated as a sale of shares followed by the purchase of a condo. This means that each shareholder must immediately pay taxes on the capital gains realized by this "sale." Of course this cuts down on the gains taxes when the converted condo is eventually sold, but the up-front payment is still pretty onerous.

(5) Recent studies indicate that condos sell for 10 to 15% more than comparable condos, so it's not like anyone is going to double the value of their apartment by converting.

If Paragraph 14 of your Proprietary Lease lists the permitted residents as "Lessee AND ...," then a family member is NOT permitted to live in the apartment in the absence of the shareholder(s). This has nothing to do with the Roommate Law, which only applies when the shareholder is concurrently occupying the apartment.

It's up to your Board how strictly you want to enforce this. Many people feel this restriction is hair-splitting and annoying, and in many cases, it is. However, the danger is that if you don't enforce the rule now, you may lose the right to enforce it in the future. What will you do when a shareholder's obnoxious and financially irresponsible brother moves into the apartment?

We do it approx. once a year. Seems effective, We do one chute at a time because we close the chute for 24 hours after dusting.

We have a washing and disinfectant system for our twenty story high compactor shaft.

We lock the compactor room hatches one each floor and drop the built-in washing system from the roof level downward; then its retracted onto its reel This occurs about once a quarter.

RitaM

How much did you pay for the built in washing system? And if possible, who was the vendor?

Thanks
Pres

Your counsel will do the filings if necessary. However, the way to handle amendments to the PL and By-laws is as follows:

1. If the proposed amendment passes, the counsel will do a formal amendment document that will be added to the PL.

2. A general mailing of the amendment is done to all the existing shareholders of the corporation stating the amendment has been approved by the shareholders and it will also announce the effective date.

3. The conversion plan and all the amendments must be surrendered by a shareholder who is selling the unit to a prospective buyers. If not, it's up to the propective buyer and/or buyer's attorney to find out what amendments exist to the PL and By-laws that will modify the speciment included in the conversion plan. This is the due diligence that should be exercised by the prospective buyer and its attorney. It's done by contacting the co-op counsel and/or the management office to ensure that the seller provided all the documentation.

4. Every PL issued after the amendment will include a copy of the amendment at closing. In other words, shareholders at the time of the amendment and future shareholders will have the amendment as part of their PL.

AdC

Thanks for the great information. Can a vote on one particular amendment be carried out by a mail-in vote sent to all shareholders in lieu of calling a special meeting? We have many shareholders who seem to prefer not having to attend meetings and would like to participate in voting by mail. Our prop lease/by-laws don't address handling issues usually voted on at special meetings by mail.

I would ask your counsel as to the proper way to do it. You may have a ballot and proxy; after all, this is the way large corporations vote on corporate proposals. You submit a proxy containing pro, con and abstain boxes for directors and officers as well as proposals.

AdC

Sounds like they are offering to do what your management company gets paid to do already. If they don't, get rid of them.

It's true that management companies do not need to be audited by other than an accountant to go over the income and expense statements. However, accountants are not trained to know if a cooperative is paying too much for supplies and services, what the cost of oil should be, whether staff overtime can be reduced, etc. Perhaps if someone did look into this for a building from time to time there would not have been so many agents found guilty of committing fraud and accepting kick backs. What you are saying is like telling the police to stay home until a crime is reported.

Folks,

Why not implement some simple rules?
1. President does not sign checks,
2. President does not sign contracts
3. Building manager (either self managed as we are, or from a management firm) does not sign checks.
4. Building manager (either self managed as we are, or from a management firm) does not sign contracts.
5. No use of credit card to pay any routine bills whatsoever, except minor purchase, e.g.; less than $200 per month (as some online web sites will only accept cards or other automated payment service).
6. Building manager must sign every invoice that is presented for payment.
7. With six board members, four are authorized to sign checks.
8. All payable and salary checks must be signed by two board members.
9. All payable checks are accompanied by the original invoice.
10. Board members can challenge any check and obtain an explanation.
11. Two accounts payable runs each month. These are for all invoices received by the 25th of the preceding month and the first is generated around the 8th. Why the 8th? Our maintenance and assessment (yes, we have assessments every year and it is collected during ten of twelve months of the year) payments are due by the 10th. In this way our funds with the bank remain relatively constant. The second run is towards the end of the month for any payments, we really need to make.
12. Original checks returned by the banks are reviewed by the treasurer every month.
13. All board members receive a complete check register every month with all payees and amounts.
14. All board members and outside counsel receive a complete listing of arrears, simple and aged every month.
15. All board members receive a use of funds report every month.
16. All board members receive a budget vs. actual comparison by month and year to date every month.
17. All board members receive a trial balance every month.
18. All board members and outside counsel receive a management report prepared by the building manager every Friday listing events (normal and unusual), letters, received, government activities, forecast of capital work and major repairs.
19. All our consumables must be purchased from a round robin of firms so that no one firm has a corner on all our purchases such that there is a lessened inclination for any kickbacks.
20. Our outside engineering firm monitors all major expenditures and certifies all work as complete, or partially complete as scheduled, before we make any payments.
21. Yes, all major capital expenditures are bid to firms identified by our engineering firm.
22. Our engineering firm levels all bids.
23. Our counsel reads and approves all contracts. Then a board member signs the contract.
24. No board member ever goes to lunch or dinner on the co-op. If we go to dinner after a meeting, it is dutch treat.
25. No board member, building manager or superintendent ever takes a free lunch or dinner from a supplier.
26. No board member, building manager or superintendent ever takes a gift from a supplier.
27. No board member ever charges the co-op for personal stationery supplies used, PC software, printer ink, personal auto, telephone calls, etc.
28. No board member ever uses the postage stamp machine in the management office unless the board member reimburses the co-op.

And, unlike some co-op and coops, admittedly a small number, we do not forgive the monthly maintenance for a board member, e.g.: the board member does not receive a free ride.

Yes, these are our rules. There are more, but you get the gist.

And we have an accounting firm that specializes in co-op and condo audits. We had one of the national/international firms until four years ago, when we switched. The national firm, which we employed for a number of years, was a neophyte in co-op audits compared to the firm we now employ.

Your rules sound good and I am glad it works for you. Our building is not self managed and I believe that because our managing agent manages several buildings we have a lot of advantages.

A self managed building puts too much responsibility on the board which is typically comprised of people who do not have any experience in managing real estate. They are volunteers who give up some of their time to review the operations of the building but are not in position to make educated evaluations or have the ability to compare it to other experiences.

One advantage of using a professional managing agent is that they have witnessed just about everything that may happen and with that experience do everything to avoid occurances in other of the managed buildings. The other is their buying power. As you know when you buy in bulk it is always less expensive.

I could go on and on about the pros and cons of using third party management but I don't think this is the venue to do so.

The condition to accept the person is to escrow... the buyer accepts it and pays for the agreement or rejected if is not in agreement.

AdC

Thanks ADc, it may be a bit more complex than that. Our building only has right of first refusal to exercise in case of any new buyer. We went back and forth with counsel and came up with this solution which buyer agreed to. So are the legal fees incurred by the Corp (in other words, time we were billed for) also passed along to the buyer?

Well, look it this way!

You did not know how to make an informed decision. You engaged your attorney to clarify or enlighten you. This money is as good as spending money on the Habitat Magazine or going to a conference to learn more about the business.

So, it's the co-op's bill. The drafting of the contract is the buyer, but your decision cost you money and hopefully, someone will record the event for future admissions members. Otherwise, pass the lessons learned like Homer's books.

That's my opinion and how I would handle it!

AdC

The tee on the riser that is inside of the wall is a job for a licensed plumber.The handyman can change the trap and/or the nipple that goes from the p-trap to the tee. If you start having the handyman make these kind of repairs it could cost you more money then what your going to be saving.

thanks Mike - it is the nipple that runs into the T -trap - part inside the wall, part outside. I am afraid the coop might say it is my responsibility but it is rotted out and it seems to be at least party inside the wall.

If you were to update your kitchen, you need to take the grease line with nipple. In other words, this is shareholder responsibility. The cost is not that much and you will eliminate a headache.

AdC

Kips Bay
100 Units
Treasurer

Midtown Manhattan
33 units
President

(We're managed by Matthew Adam Properties)

not very satisfied

manhattan 400 units

vp

We have been self managed for twenty-five years and quite frankly, we would not have it any other way.

Our neighborhood buildings, same general population, same cost structure, etc. have had numerous management companies and even a greater number of building managers.

Let’s also mention the accompaniments to the repetitive changes in firms and staffing, e.g.; poor record keeping, lack of continuity, disharmony, conflicts, autocratic building managers, etc.

Before I am castigated, let me assert there are many fine firms and many excellent relationships.

500 units
Northern NJ
Secretary of the Board
Zero underlying mortgage

Unless your corporate bylaws prohibit criminals from serving on the board, they're permitted. Which makes me think that such a prohibition would be wise to add to my co-op's bylaws.

Let me get this straight: He or she has been CONVICTED ... and that isn't enough to make the voting shareholders consider the person unfit?

What kind of building is this? Does it have bars on all the windows, towers with armed guards, and a warden's office?

Seriously, what kind of job are you doing communicating this to the shareholders? Are the shareholders seriously OK with this?

What if the sponsor still owns over 60% of the shares? As is the case in our building, he casts his votes for whomever he wants... Maybe we need you on the case, Elliot Ness :)