That's going to be a tricky situation, BT.

I suggest speaking with your corporate counsel first. You need to know where you stand before asking the guy to do something.

Find out what he can be asked to do, in what time frame, etc., under your propreitary lease and the law. (There's plenty of case law on smokers -- do you read The Times's Real Estate section?)

Then ask the person nicely, not at a board meeting. Presumably that won't work, so it should next be brought up at a board meeting so the smoker can see that it's all of you vs. him (have with you copies of letters complaining about him) . If that doesn't work, you'll have to have a letter sent. Remember, the lawyer works for the board president (so I hope the smoker isn't the pres!), not individual members of the board, so the smoker can't have the lawyer fire back.

Is this person an officer too (secretary, treasurer or vice president)? Our by-laws allow the board to strip an officer of his/her office by majority vote. NOTE: This is NOT stripping him/her of membership on the board; that probably requires a votes of the shareholders. But it's something you can do to send a message that his behavior is not proper.

I'm curious to see what other suggest ... they are probably better ideas out there.

Please explain "lawyer works for the board president". Does not the lawyer work for the entire board of directors?

That's a good question. Let me preface this by pointing out that I am not a lawyer, just a board member who works with one. So before you make any decision, consult your lawyer first.

Here's what I mean. Our board recently needed to hire a new corporate counsel (our previous one raised his rates too high for us). We interviewed several lawyers. One of the questions we asked was, "What is one of the biggest mistakes boards make?" One of the replies was "infighting."

The lawyer went on to say that in a case where the board doesn't agree on an issue that involves the lawyer, the lawyer has to follow the president's instructions.

So even if the board wants to do X, and the president tells the lawyer to do Y, the lawyer has to do the latter. (Doing so, of course, sets up the board president for a coup.)

Again, I'm not a lawyer, so don't take this as case law. In the example of the original question, I was pointing out that if the smoker is the board president, the board as a whole may be limited in its legal options -- because the board president could block them. Which would be an abrogation of his/her fiduciary duty, but if the person is addicted to nicotine, he/she may not see things clearly.

Thanks for all the feedback. We have 2 co-presidents (it is a really small building with lots of problems so they are splitting it). The problem person is secretary. We are not really talking about cigarette smoke, though there are small smaller issues with that within the building. It is pot smoke. Just to re-cap, management sent a letter last year whereupon the behavior got better but it always reverts. A shareholder spoke to him directly about the smoke and was sent a note apologizing saying a new air filter was bought. While that has lessened the odor for now, it will come back. The bass noise is always audible in the lobby and halls and travels through the floors and walls into the shareholders units above. He is only on the Board to protect himself, and probably assumes we will be in this confused position about how to deal with it.

If the offending shareholder is a heavy pot smoker, why wasn't the illegality of this used as leverage to get him to be more compliant? Couldn't this be used now?

I generally agree with AdC and Steve with an exception - that if the board wants to do X and the president wants to do Y, the coop's lawyer has to do what the president wants.

The lawyer doesn't work for the board, the president, any one board member, any shareholders or management. He works for the coop - the apartment corporation. He is not duty bound to do what the president wants. His job is to work in the best interests of the coop as a whole. If he believes that what the president wants doesn't accomplish that, he isn't duty bound to comply, and he can't just do what he wants either.

Much of a lawyer's job is advisory. If a board disagrees on what to do in a particular case, he should advise them as to what's legal, proper and best for the coop. He shouldn't just do what anyone wants. If a board (including president) can't agree on something that will be in the coop's best interests, he shouldn't do anything until they can agree on this. Some lawyers may not follow this precept but this is what they should do.

For your info, as a board president, if I have a disagreement with the board, i.e., I think one way and the majority another, I ask the attorney to speak with the board (all members) and go over the situation. Everyone gets the education and the benefit of the doubt.

But it's not me and my lawyer. As you well stated, it is the co-op legal counsel. The day I want to pay for my personal advice, I will count my pennies and open my pocket.

AdC

Glad you agree, AdC. A coop attorney works for the coop. We had a Sh who wanted to sue two board members. He claimed they OK'd a new coop fee that he couldn't afford to pay and they knew he had financial problems because he told them so in private as "friends". Our attorney said he couldn't address issues for individual board members and they'd have to get their own attorneys to handle it. (The Sh eventually dropped the whole thing.)

A friend who's on a board in another coop had problems with three Shs who openly told lies about him to get themselves elected. He wanted to sue and asked his coop's attorney for help, but the attorney said no because he only works for the coop. (He got his own attorney and sued the three Shs for liable. A few Shs appeared in court for him to attest that they were told the lies, that were easily disproved, and the three Shs had to pay a hefty financial penalty.

A coop attorney works for the coop, plain and simple.

In my case as a board member I have written correspondence to the lawyer asking for explanation of board presidents "law expertise" & it has been over two months & no response from lawyer. I guess our coop lawyer does not know that he works for the entire board of directors and the shareholders as a whole.

Obviously, you did not read my paragraph from my original posting. This is the answer you are looking for. I have corrected some mistakes in quoting:

"Over the years, what I have objected from some ignorant (not to call them ILL-INTENDED board members) is their calls to the co-op counsel, insurance brokers or other professionals to consult [their] the particular board member's own point of view or TO raise issues that reflect their own point of view WITHOUT BEING DELEGATED BY THE BOARD TO DO SO. This is AS IMPRUDENT AS the PRESIDENT acting on his/her own. Unless a board member is empowered by the board to do the contacts and report back, individual actions send the signal of a weak, divided board or the wrong decision. Thus, to act as a board, all participate, all volunteer, all work in the measure of their talents and all live by the decisions of the majority; the minutes will reflect the desenting vote."

NOW, if you find that certain opinions of the president regarding legality are wrong, you challenge it in front of the other board members and request that the "legal opinion" be clarified with the co-op attorney. If you find the other board members to go with you, no big deal for the president to say, OKAY, let's consulted. WHO VOLUNTEERS to do the calling and report back to the board? Otherwise, to send an e-mail to the co-op counsel with the question with copy to all board members will do. If you have no e-mail, then the person who does have one will make copies of the co-op counsel's asnwer and distribute.

The case is closed!


AdC

I don't think that the lawyer only represents the President by law - according to New York State Law - It is the board, not an individual that makes policy - which makes sense because then why would you need 9 people and a vote - Our lawyer says he represents the board - however that is not true

Actually, this isn't correct.

The co-op's legal representative works for the entire Board. Generally, the Board will interact with the lawyer only through one person, in order to avoid confusion (and keep the bills low) -- but, for example, if the president and Board are at odds, and the president is in the minority, the legal agent must represent the majority's decision, not that of the president alone.

First, the president is the speaker of the board, but has no other power than being the speaker and sign contracts on behalf of the board. Of course, the president is expected to lead, to provide vision and to PERSUADE. The president cannot make decisions on his/her own that amounts to tons of money, although in emergency situations and run of the mill issues, he/she will be approving routine work.

One thing I learned from our counsel is as follows: "The Board serves at the pleasure of the shareholders; the directors including the president serve at the pleasure of the board." In other words, a president gets the vote of confidence from the board and his/her function is to serve the board.

A president shows his/her ignorance by taking major responsibility on his/her shoulder on behalf of the board. A president must learn the VIRTUE of PRUDENCE. When big money is involved, and actions may be questioned, a president should use his/her INTELLIGENCE AND PRUDENCE to pause and read the above definition. THEREFORE, those who advocate for e-mails, telephone calls, etc. will find fertile ground here: the PRESIDENT will not only CONSULT via these methods of communications what board member think, but will call for a face-to-face meeting. WHY??? Because a PRUDENT president wants dialog, discussion and a VOTE or resolution of the board before diving into the pool.

Over the years what I have objected from some ignorant (not to call them ILL-INTENDED board members) is to call on their own counsel, insurance brokers or other professionals to consult their own their point of view or raise issues that reflects their own point of view. Thi is AS IMPRUDENT AS the PRESIDENT acting on his/her own. Unless a board member is empowered by the board to do the contacts and report back, individual actions send the signal of a weak, divided board or the wrong decision. Thus, to act as a board, all participate, all volunteer, all work in the measure of their talents and all live by the decisions of the majority; the minutes will reflect the desenting vote.

AdC

Paid heed to this situation:

"The outgoing Board was ready to send an attoney's letter to the person about smoke and noise coming from his apt and decided to wait until the new elections. Now we have the problem shareholder on the Board.

Should we speak to the Board member first or send a letter? Can he even be on the Board if he is in violation of the house rules?"

1. Each time something like this happens nip it immediately. The worst thing boards do is do nothing. Silence has condemned the the "do nothing," "the nice guys/gals", "the uninvolved."

2. If the person was objectionable, bring it to the attention at a meeting, etc. Now, it is "tolerance" or become enemies. After all you all tolerated it for years and even allowed the person to be elected.

3. At this point, board members should discuss the issue openly with management as a witness and assume the consequences of how the person is going to take it.

4. If you are in majority, the person will have to comply. But probably will never cooperate and become adversarial and resentful.

Good luck!

AdC

totally agree with AdC. This kind of behavior must be nipped in the bud, and shown early on that it is not acceptable. Now the board , and the building, seems to be held hostage to this outrageously inconsiderate neighbor!

Just reporting back on new Board member with history of objectionable behavior. At our first Board meeting, the atmosphere was tense. No one wanted to lead the discussion about the noise and smoke (which has subsided considerably since he voted himself on the Board). A Board member took him outside before the meeting and seems to have gotten assurances of good-natured compliance. Could it be a new leaf? As new shareholders have moved into the building there has been a shift to Zero Tolerance and we think the Problem knows it. Also knows a lawyers letter was poised to go out. Any comments on how this was handled? Thanks all for your input on the situation.

While there are no hard and fast rules on this one, I believe the superintendent wound perform some of the basic repairs in his/her apartment. Obviously there are situations where outside professional help may be required (plumbing back to the riser, electrical problems). In addition a lot depends on your relationship with the superintendent. If you have a very good super you may be willing to go the extra mile to help out. If not well.....

Finally, when the apartment becomes vacant for whatever reason (super moves on etc), it is probably best to go in and view the apartment to see what maintenance needs to be done as part of the upkeep (painting, sanding of floors etc)

Hope this helps

FN

Thanks, FN. The super's apartment was repaired and renovated 6 years ago at a cost of $13K, before we hired our current super. He hasn't taken very good care of it and now wants us to hire an outside contractor to make repairs that were caused by his own negligence. For example, if he had addressed minor things at the outset, like using caulk in the tub surround, there would not be water damage on his living room wall.

I guess my question is, how much responsibility (monetarily and otherwise) does the super bear? We are not too keen on spending a lot of money (again) to fix his place up if he is not going to maintain it.

this is the sign of a bad super. not worth keeping. start getting him out. serisously.

While I agree with Sally (a little)I am of the opinion that you should first talk to your superintendent if you haven't already. Explain that he/she is responsible for the basic upkeep and if there is an issue that needs to be addessed regarding the apartmentyou are available. Start a dialogue and log/keep a record of when you had conversations. The rule of thumb which is very basic is, if there is a problem regarding the apartment it should be addressed straight away rather than later. A caulking job today that costs $20 (caulk etc) could end up a year from now as $500. (shareholder below has water marks on the ceiling and walls etc).

Hope this helped,

FN

I don't live in a condo, but here's a link to an article about a Manhattan condo that used its right of first refusal to deny the sale of apartments to a group home for the mentally disabled.

The group home sued and won.

http://www.nysun.com/article/54635

If nothing else, this is an example of why we don't need Councilmember Montserrate's bill to pass -- existing laws work!

For condos you don't need the law, but Coops do need it

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you, George. Co-ops are covered by the same laws as condos.

That said, there probably are co-op boards that discriminate; ours is not yet a perfect society. But if a board member told you why that couple's purchase application was denied, she's not going to say, "We don't want children/Hispanics/gay couples in our building." Instead, she'll say something like, "Their financials weren't up to our standards," or "They don't have steady incomes because they're artists/freelancers/new to the area."

The same thing would happen under Bill 119. But that's only one reason the bill is unnecessary.

The State of New York already identifies 14 protected categories against whom discrimination is illegal. They include race, religion, sexual orientation, military service, familiy status (whether you have kids or not), marital status (cohabiting instead of being married) and others. Turning down someone for any of these reasons makes a corporation guilty.

The office of the attorney general of New York, Andrew Cuomo, investigates and prosecutes these cases. One thing that means is that the aggrieved party need not hire her own lawyer -- the state picks up the cost. Another thing that means is the defendant has a bulldog bringing charges against it. New York's attorneys general have a recent history of going after even the biggest and most respected corporations.

If you, George, or anyone else reading this, know of any co-op, condo or landlord that has violated this state law, please call the Attorney General's office at (212) 416-8000, or visit his web site: www.oag.state.ny.us. We need to put an end to housing discrimination, and your phone call can make a difference.

Proposed Bill 119 creates no further protection for the 14 categories. There is, however, one additional group of people who will enjoy protection under the bill: Real estate agents.

Yep, the real estate agent of the buyer would be entitled to make a complaint AND to win damages.

So who's really being helped here? It's not the people of color or the people with children. They're already covered and protected. It's the real estate agent who wins! (Don't get me started on the new specialty that would enrich lawyers for years to come.)

1. Have you met with your insurance broker to go over your coverage and know what are you covered for in the event of specific disaster(s) or losses?

2. Do you have total or partial replacement coverage?

3. Is total insurance coverage required because of the nature of your construction? How much would total TRUE replacement add to your premium a year? This may be considerable and perhaps out of reach, but you make the final deicison relating to the exposure that you wish to carry.

4. What about specific insurance for specific equipment, pollution issues and other coverages?


Regarding replacement coverage: Insurance in buildings is usually based on partial destruction, not on total loss. Of course, total loss is only a problem of certain types of constructions, location due to threats of terrorism, or other conditions.

The cost of replacing a building deals with construction costs per square foot. If you know the total square feet of the building and the typical construction costs per square feet, you may have the cost of replacing the building as it exists today in the event of a TRUE total loss, even when the present building does not meet the present standard codes. Once your establish the figure, you may set yourself to find out if you need total TRUE replacement or a significant amount under "total loss."

AdC

Thank you so much for your informative response. Your advice will help when we scrutinize our building's insurance, which I hope will be soon. I am particularly concerned about what the flooding of the sub basement ( for example from a monster hurricane) could mean to crucial equipment.

What drainage and equipment do you have in place to draw your water out from the building? Do you presently have a problem when it rains under flashflood conditions?

We have PROBLEMS too, and we are not talking about a very large, deep sub-basement. However,interestinag enough, things were cheap when the building was constructed. You will laugh if I tell you that the "drainage" consisted in opening the doors of the lobby (which is below street level) to let the water floor the elevator shaft!!! So, drainage is extremely poor and we cannot do much after revising the subject numerous times.

Getting adequately sized sump pumps that can be displaced or in place to handle water under flooding conditions is critical in our case.

Before the rain or the storm hits your building, you should start finding answers, so you may not have to engage scuba divers to look for equipment. That would be too late!!! Finally, your insurance will help with any major damages after you have done all your due diligence.

AdC

Some Boards distribute minutes to shareholders, while others do not. I do note that shareholders like it better to be informed, but be prepared to answer to them when they question why the Bopard made certain decisions.

I do not believe it to be a good thing to post them on a site, unless it was in a secure area where individual shareholders would have to log in to access the files. You do not want anyone viewing these, this can be dangerous.

Good Luck,
~AR

HOw pathetic they are at times! I have read many years' worth of monthly board meetings and they prove what we know already: history repeats over and over and over...

Philosophy apart, I would say that minutes must be "sanitized" to leave out certain sensitive areas that we all know... staff issues, shareholders and tenants relations, even when minutes may only refer to apt. number and not names for arrears, water penetration, accidents, alterations, violations, etc.

As AR mentions, minutes may be dangerous if not addressed in their right context.

I would rather spend more effort and still address operations in a more focus manner so that decisions made by the board are enlightened by way of background and reason behind the decision. In other words, I am looking by buy-in of the shareholder population if the decision is to affect financially or quality of living.

AdC

If you're looking to improve communication within the building, let me suggest a newsletter insted.

That way you're putting out the information you want, in a friendly way instead of the spartan, direct language of the minutes.

The newsletter need not be fancy -- just a page of updates distributed whenever you like. It could also include reminders (the managing agent's phone number, when to take out recyclables) and other things you like.

We've been doing it for a few years in our building and the residents love it.

Steve makes a greast point. Any building that we have that puts out newsleters, is a happier, more informed building, with less potential to stop a Board member in the hall to ask questions.

~AR

It sounds like a noble effort that may not be worth it. These are my immediate reactions:

(1)You have to re-bid every year the insurance so that you stay competitive with the rates offered by various insurance companies.

(2) Individual shareholders may receive a greater discount if they have a car and other insurance that may qualify them. Similarly, some individuals may get umbrella policies for cars, boats, co-op that will go beyond the basic.

(3) Co-op insurance has different components: liability / personal. Some may think that their personal component should not be more than $10K while others may wish to take added personal for valuable objects such as work of arts, jewelry, antiques, etc.

(4) There are insurances that offer the additional assessmsent coverage in the event of total destruction of the building and need to additionally assess for reconstruction if a total replacement insurance is not in place for the co-op.

Good luck if you feel your efforts will be compensated!

AdC

Insurance companies do not wish to assume the burden for an entire building. As a matter of fact, they have sophisticated systems that discern how much coverage they’ve written for a property and then they reinsure via any number of reinsures.

Thus, it would seem unlikely they would bid on an entire building.

In my case, I have my homeowners, auto and a mega-million umbrella policy with one carrier. For this, I obtain a discount.

Again, one carrier is unlikely to offer all residents a similar “discount” as it leaves the carrier quite exposed.

Let me ask another question; why even burden the board with this work? In my view, there are many more areas for board concentration than saving shareholders a few dollars which they soon will soon overlook.

Sure someone can cancel after showing us the policy, but at least they had insurance once.

Last May 2006 as I was traveling on the west coast, our building manager called to tell me they were entering my apartment as a compensator failed and water had percolated from the 18th floor to all apartments in the same line(s) below.

While the building assumed some expenses, I was required to use my own homeowners insurance to:
1. Remove my furniture from the living room, dining room and foyer as the entire parquet floor (monolithic) required replacement.
2. Then, at my expense, I was required to discard all carpeting and underlayment.
3. Then, after the parquet floor was replaced at co-op expense, I was required to replace the carpeting and underlayment (don't forget the 80% rule).
4. There were some wall stains, so I needed to have part of the wall painted.
5. Finally, I needed to have someone move all the furniture into the living, dining room and foyer.

My tab was about $19,000 of which insurance paid about $11,000. Yes, we bought a better grade carpet.

Ain’t I glad I had insurance?

then you will be notified if the policy is canceled. This is the same as when a shareholder has a contract do your and you get a certificate of insurance with the coop named as additional insured.

I require shareholders to provide proof of insurance, which they are responsible to obtain on their own. My reasoning is that when 2A leaks on 1A due to personal negligence (bathing 3 kids at once), the coop is not responsible for this repair. I can then, without argument from or between the shareholders, inform them that this is a situation for their own insurance companies to work out. Management and the board are free from arbitrating this shareholder - shareholder event. Of course I follow up to ensure an amicable resolve.

Mortgage companies require continued insurance on the investment. Your manager should have a copy on file from the closing; you can have him/her just maintain a spreadsheet, and annually remind shareholders to send the updated proof.

On another note, it is illegal to force renters to purchase insurance. I always "highly recommend it" and assist in pointing them to a broker (we use The Registry – same company used for credit/background checks). The rational is the same as with the shareholder.

All that said, I agree with the other posters, in that the Board should not take on this responsibility (and added possible liability if something goes wrong). Use your manager if you do this, and have it be a management policy, not a Board policy.

Good Luck
~AR

The Board is about to address the issue of all shareholders needing proof of insurance and we have a concern about a unit that was bought from foreclosure years ago. They might not even have a mortgage that requires insurance as they may have paid cash. They have a rottweiler. We have heard many carriers do not issue policies for households that have certain breeds of dogs. How can we ensure that they get insurance if that is the case? How can we be sure that these shareholders tel the insurance company that they have a rottie? If they don't disclose this fact, and there is ever an incident with the dog, can't the Co-op be held liable for any injuries or claims arising from an incident?
Thanks all.

Those questions are better suited for your insurance broker.

I resent your kind of thinking - so parental. you better find out the legality of such a requirement first. I am not sure AdC is correct.

and do fine shareholders that are not compliant. Though to be honest I have not querry counsel about legality and do not know of any shareholder that has tested this.

Jack

Sally, I agree with AR. Shs should get their own insurance. The prop mgr can keep a spreadsheet and send Shs an annual reminder at renewal time. Our Shs send our prop mgr a copy of each renewal, at least the page with effective dates so we know it's kept up. Our apt sale package includes a form (to be signed by a buyer applicant and notarized) agreeing to get insurance and send a copy of the policy (or a letter of confirmation from the insurer that it's forthcoming) to our mgmt office within 30 days of apt closing.

As AR said, it's illegal to require renters/subletters to get insurance. Our Shs who rent insure interior elements of their apt (floors, appliances, all fixtures that come with the apt), and they recommend to their renters that they get insurance to cover their personal belongings in case of fire, water damage, etc.

The board should stay out of insurance issues, and as AR said, the prop mgr can advise a Sh if s/he has to deal with another Sh directly to settle a problem and just follow up to make sure it's resolved.

"it's illegal to require renters/subletters to get insurance."

Well, you are not dealing with renters or subletters, but with shareholder or sponsor(s)if more than one, who sublease. Therefore, the shareholder who owns the unit is always responsible for liability insurance.

So, directly, you may not impose on renters, but on the shareholders of the sublease unit!!!

AdC

thanks everyone for yoru input.
I am not sure it is legal to require shareholders to maintain insurance - where can we check? i want to be 100% sure of facts. thanks!
despite the fact that you can amend it or put it inthe bylaws - bottom line - is that legal>?
sometimes the board has to get involved if structural elements othte building are involved - like the floor structure and electric between floors and any original components of the building like the original floor. that is all coop responsibility. except if there is a case of neglegence like the upstairs neighbor leaving on a tap - in which case veryone's insuracne co. should be notified inc. the coops.

You may enact a resolution of the board and demanding liability insurance for $ X value and $X for personal insurance.

Liability insurance is for damages caused to the structure and other shareholders' apartments due to negligence or accidents on the part of the shareholder. Example: You had a water overflow in your toilet tank; your dishwasher hose got dettached from the elbow under your sink, a painter fell in your apartment and had no insurance of his own; you left a window open during a storm and water penetrated your apartment and the one below, you started an accidental fire that ruined a portion of your apartment, your heat vent is defective and water came out and affected the ceiling of the apartment below or your own apartment, you decided to spread a cement slurry to place tiles in the kitchen, but the slurry was too thin and ended up in the apartment below, etc.

So, individual insurance is excellent for shareholders to buy peace of mind if something were to go wrong under their responsibility.

Finally, it has nothing to do with the responsibility of keeping the buidling infrastructure by the co-op, except that shareholders and co-op sometimes want to pass the buck to the other and conflicts ensue.

AdC

hi

That is not something anyone can answer with certainty.
Since you are not in a flood zone, it will be very inexpensive to obtain and probably worth adding (somewhat like the glass coverage on your auto)
~AR

I like to see a minimum of 3 months maitenance.
depending the size of the building and the condition, etc. your reserve should be established.
A good manager or an engineering consultant can access how much your building will need based on the condition, useful life of building components, future plans (ammenities, etc.), etc.
Just for safety, and in the mean time, have your managing agent secure a line of credit in case something happens that requires emergency funds.

~AR

We have two "reserve" funds/

Suggest you obtain the AICPA document as it defines or poses “ground rules”.
See: Common Interest Realty Associations — AICPA Audit and Accounting Guide
The Audit and Accounting Guide summarizes applicable practices and delivers "how-to" advice for handling almost every type of financial statement. It describes relevant matters, conditions, and procedures unique to realty associations, and illustrates treatments of financial statements and reports to caution auditors and accountants about unusual problems.
https://www.cpa2biz.com/CS2000/Products/CPA2BIZ/Publications/Sub+3/Common+Interest+Realty+Associations+%97+AICPA+Audit+and+Accounting+Guide+%5BSubscription%5D.htm
In our case (500 unit co-op) in NJ, we have two reserves, e.g.; short term liquid cash and long term capital improvements.

In addition, we have a line of credit. We have a “standard” capital improvement assessment each year. We collect it during the middle six months.

Until the reserve fund is replenished, we sometimes find it necessary to obtain funds to pay contractors and vendors. To this end, we use our line of credit.

But do note that we repay the line of credit before year end and that we never use the line of credit as working capital.

Thank you both for your informative answers!! I really appreciate it.

Our on hand liquid ready cash is 20% of our monthly outflow.

Our arrears from shareholders averages .2% of our yearly expected inflow of funds for all payments (maintenance, assessment, bulk cable, parking, etc.)

Our capital reserves at year end are typically $500,000.

So with 500 units, we have $1,000 per unit in our capital reserves at year end.

Our inflow for capital reserves is almost $2,000 per unit per year. Note that we collect nearly $1,000,000 per year in assessments for ongoing capital improvements per the AICPA required supplementary schedule. Our outflow is thus $2,000+/- per unit per year.

By the way we have no underlying mortgage, having paid off the original mortgage without ever refinancing or taking a new mortgage.

Or guarantors???

Again... there are many ways to help children. Even when we are grown up children, we never get old for our parents!. We used to buy brand new cars to children; why not an apartment or our house now while alive?
But, what is the maturity of the occupant and the ability to pay that is important in your case.


Position:
(1) The child has to appear with the parent as co-shareholder if you have a sublet policy in place with occupancy limits before being able to sublet.

(2) Your child and parents must comply with financial and references. Everyone that would live in the unit must be interviewed by the admissions committee.

(3) Why is the parent buying for a child? To attend the university, to provide the first home for a child as the child is trying to start a career in NYC or suburb?

(4) Any roommates from the onset must be interviwed for rules and character references must be provided.

AdC

AdC is, as usual, right on target.

Here are some of the reasons boards ask for the things AdC suggests.

* Usually the children are in their 20's, often just a year or two out of college. Many are reliable, honest and mature adults. Some, however, are not, and believe that their apartment can be treated as a dorm or a rental unit with an absentee landlord -- who happens to be Mommy & Daddy.

* Some of them believe that paying the maintenance is optional. Or they say that it's their parents' responsibility (even if it isn't).

* They may decide to have friends stay the summer while they're out of town; you & I consider that subletting, which requires an application, a fee, maybe an interview; the young person who lives there may think he/she is just being helpful to a friend in need anda that the board should butt out.

* The child may not be prepared to understand the importance of following the rules of communal living.

* Some may have roommates who change every year.

Again, some children are wonderful subtennants; our building has wonderful examples of young people who live in apartments their parents bought for them. Part of the reason is that they are responsible people. But another part is because parents and child attended the board interview, and because parents and child filled out purchase applications.

Steve

What is becoming more popular though is the ability to purchase under a Corporation or a Living Trust, which somewhat negates the whole guarantors or parents thing because the children are named as beneficiary of the Trust.

I do not care for this much because it is harder to sue the Trust than it is a physical shareholder.

~AR