joe, some of what you say confuses me. would be happy to advise further, but can you clarify a few things?

-your father-in-law owns the apartment
-your wife stands to inherit the apartment
-the building is not allowing her name to go on the lease because they are concerned about income level

what confuses me is what you say about them getting the apartment back - is this a limited ownership co-op with a waiting list? that's the only way the building can get the apartment back.

if not, and the apartment is owned free and clear and there's only maintenance to pay, they would have a hard time denying your wife. we sometimes request a year of maintenance in escrow if we have any financial concern - that could certainly be an option if need be.

> Join the conversation

I wish I could clarify things better but they are not clear on my end either, and I think management here prefers that things remain unclear.

My father-in-law is "the shareholder." He pays a monthly maintenance fee. I've asked him whether he owns this apartment and every time despite the length of his response I still never know the answer. I have never heard the coop referred to as "limited ownership," but I do know that my father-in-law and his (now deceased) wife were on a waiting list for a long time before they moved in. I also know that at the time when they went on the waiting list, as well as at the time they moved in, their intention was for my wife to inherit the apartment. In fact, they had entered her name on the lease along with their own names at that time, but then about 3 years ago, after my wife's brother suggested looking into it, that they discovered that technically only 2 names were allowed to be listed on the lease and that had defaulted to excluding my wife.

Now that my wife's mother is dead, it would seem straightforward that her name could replace her mother's on the lease. As for why they there's been such a runaround from management in getting this done, it's only speculation. I expect it has to do with my wife's income. But I don't know this. It's just the only explanation I can think of. They asked her for an absurd arrangement of documents, which she sent, only for them to then ask her for more documents, including some which she had already sent, and some outdated tax info that would require a hefty fee to the IRS to attain, and it was left unresolved. When they (or I) have attempted to communicate with management staff about it, the staff has been nasty and insulting on the phone and provided no clear information as to what we need to do.

I'm trying to sort things out for them, but like I said I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know a lot about these issues, it's been very hard. Yesterday after a conversation with my father-in-law, he decided to call a lawyer that another relative recommended, but having a little dementia, what he told the lawyer on the phone didn't make a lot of sense. He passed the phone to me at the end and the lawyer asked me to send him the notice we got, sounding a little frustrated. So I sent it, along with some clarification.

I'm hoping we'll be able to hire this lawyer and get this straightened out. On the other hand I don't think we should be responsible for the legal fees since what we want is supposed to be doable in a week, not 3 years. The whole thing is maddening.

My father-in-law still thinks we need to go to court tomorrow, because "grounds for eviction" notice said that if we didn't remedy the alleged problem by then that they will file a claim with Housing Preservation and Development for our eviction. I tried to explain that as of now that office doesn't even know about our problem, and if a claim is filed, THEN we would need to go to court. But it just went in circles. Like I said before: he has some dementia. Moreover, when I called the HPD office about it, to ask what we need to do, they said they don't handle these things at all!

Long story short, I guess clarity is exactly what is missing about every aspect of this situation. And I think that's the way the management likes it.

> Join the conversation

what you describe (with a waiting list) is a limited equity co-op. they paid very little in and arguably when they move out, the co-op reverts back and goes to the next person on the list.

where these co-ops have become hot topics is when there's a possibility that they will revert to unlimited equity. meaning that the owners in place when the 'contract' is up will be sitting on very valuable property. perhaps you are getting a hard time because the property is up for conversion in the next few years.

definitely reach out to a lawyer. you can learn more about these co-ops here:http://cooperator.com/articles/2156/1/Out-of-Many-One-New-York/Page1.html

> Join the conversation

Yes that does shed some light on the possible motivations behind all this. Really I just moved in here with my wife because the ceiling was falling in at my last apartment and her family is very welcoming. I had no idea how much politics I would be getting into. I just needed a place to stay.

Anyway I spoke with that lawyer I mentioned, myself, and he seems to know what he's doing, and to be taking our situation seriously. He has an impressive reputation and the person who recommended him is very trustworthy. At this point the plan is to pass on my records to the lawyer and follow his advice from here on. From the looks of it the management's handling was quite foolish, even to their own ends, because not only will they have to honor our rights but they may have to cover our legal expenses too. I can't believe how far they went to intimidate us, some of it was definitely not legal.

Anyway thank you for lending an ear and for the info.

> Join the conversation