HABITAT
Subscribe for Daily Updates!
Would love some feedback about the following: we have a board sales package for review. In the contract of sale the owner and purchaser made an agreement which allows the seller to stay in the cooperative up to three months after the sale. Our building has a sublet policy and sublet fees. The seller states in the agreement with the purchaser the seller would simply continue paying maintenance.
As a board member my strong thoughts are that this sounds like a sublet and would first need board approval and fees would apply. The contract of sale agreement must follow building rules and this agreement shoukd be reviewed by coop attorney. Furthermore, once the transfer is done maintenance must be paid by the new owners. The building simply cannot accept seller checks after sale.
While boards need to have some flexibility and fairness, a sale is a sale and our PL and building rules trump all else.
Thoughts?
We had a similar circumstance and voted not to allow it based on the fact that our propriety lease does not allow a new purchaser to sublet an apartment until one year after purchasing it.
It is quite normal in a residential real estate transaction for a party to stay for a period of time in a sold residence to allow for the necessary sale and purchase closings. The coop is dealing with a known entity, the seller, and a vetted entity, the buyer. Calous limited interpretations of arbitrary rules should not be allowed to interfere with helping neighbors at no cost to the coop with the transaction and the transition of their place of residence.
When does interpretation of the rules, out of fairness to all shareholders, become callous? This not a house sale where it is a common situation to allow the seller to stay. We have to live by a different set of rules that do not exist in other types of real estate transactions. All this was debated and the Board agreed not to allow the situation per our rules. The seller found another buyer and everyone is happy.
When neither the interpretation nor the rules further the common interests. Whether a single family home owned as real property or a cooperative apartment unit "owned" effectively by shares in the corporation, the financial "closing" transaction and occupancy of a place to live is the same. In facts, coops have argued that the same set of laws need apply to them, that the transactions of sahres be treated for legal/tax purposes as residential property sales and the corporation be taxed as residential real estate.
Fortunately the current robust market in NY and elsewhere provided the seller with a successful outcome now and the corporation can feel comfortable in sitting back. But really, we now know that such markets are not always the case; not even now as many areas of the country have yet to recover from the housing downturn.
Now's the time to look at the rules to update them to better serve allt hose to whome they apply. What did your rule really protect in this case; what might have been the cost?
The board needs to
be clear about how to deal with such cases so as not to seem either arbitrary or showing favoritism(or lack thereof). It sounds like clear communication is needed- always a good thing. How does this benefit or harm the co-op- that is the real question. Especially in a small co-op there may be more opportunity to tailor a situation rather than rely on the "one size fits all" sort of PL often promoted by legal counsel. Everyone can benefit or be harmed equally if not careful.
Introduce yourself to other members of Board Talk! Log in below or register here.
Board Talk members who registered prior to March 9th, 2016 will need to reset their password.
Board Talk members who registered prior to March 9th, 2016 will need to reset their password.
Habitat u
visit habitat uHabitat U: learn about how to manage a building, and what you should know as a co-op or condo board member.
Archives
search
Search, by word or phrase, all magazine articles from January 2002 to present. You may print or email your results. Print subscribers receive free access to the Habitat Article Archive.
Ask the Experts
learn moreLearn all the basics of NYC co-op and condo management, with straight talk from heavy hitters in the field of co-op or condo apartments
Professionals in some of the key fields of co-op and condo board governance and building management answer common questions in their areas of expertise
Subscribe
join nowGot elected? Are you on your co-op/condo board?
Then don’t miss a beat! Stories you can use to make your building better, keep it out of trouble, save money, enhance market value, and make your board life a whole lot easier!
Hi Frank,
While I agree with you, maybe the clause is facilitating the sale. I would inquire further as to the reasons.
I wouldn't necessarily hang your hat on a 3 month deal. Maybe just collect the 3 months of sublet fees as a condition of the sale; and have the seller pay 3 months of maintenance at the time of sale for the buyer.
My suggestion is to facilitate the sale without causing unnecessary roadblocks.
Good luck!
Thank you for rating!
You have already rated this page, you can only rate it once!
Your rating has been changed, thanks for rating!
Board Talk members who registered prior to March 9th, 2016 will need to reset their password.