Check the proprietary lease for objectionable conduct and document all incidents. You may be able to terminate the lease.

Thank you. Very helpful. Yes, I had forgotten, our prop lease does contain a clause about objectionable conduct:
Lessee’s Objectionable Conduct
If at any time the Lessor shall determine, upon the affirmative vote of two-thirds of its then Board of Directors, at a meeting duly called for that purpose, that because of objectionable conduct on the part of the Lessee, or of a person dwelling or visiting in the apartment, repeated after written notice from Lessor, the tenancy of the Lessee is undesirable . . . Although I think it would be extraordinarily messy (and, I think, divisive and not good for the building) to try to terminate the lease, at least there is some language that addresses objectionable conduct and perhaps gives us a little more leverage to document instances of the SH’s erratic behavior.

Oh, I meant to add: I think it would be great if we could terminate the lease. I just don’t think it would fly. It’s difficult enough to get people to join forces to call the SH out on his aggressive behavior.

But, if we have language in the prop lease that gives us a little leverage to at least document such instances — which really seem to be part of a pattern, not isolated — and could perhaps have the management company address the incidents in writing, that might be enough of a deterrent to curb the behavior. Knock on wood.

Our building just went through a similar problem: be aware it is very costly in legal fees to vote someone off the island. We received a legal bill equal to the mortgage of our building. All the articles about Pullman succeeding and finding the right wording in your PROP lease, who is right or wrong, does not seem to matter in the end. It sill costs a lot of money, depending on how unreasonable the offending party is and how much money they have to fight back. Good luck.

I completely agree with you, Newbie; see my response just above yours.

That’s why I think some sort of social pressure could be so effective. Continuing to ignore the behavior or sweep it under the rug sends the wrong message. It reinforces the behavior and in fact makes us complicit in it. Most people in the building dislike or fear this guy but he has a core of three or four loyalists who enable him. If one of these otherwise intelligent people were finally to step forward and call him out and/or if the management company were to send him a letter, that could perhaps be effective in curbing the behavior. Absent that, I think he will simply continue to operate according to his own rules. Worst case scenario, things could escalate.

On the one hand I want to say that he can’t control his behavior. On the other, though, he seems to act one way in a one-on-one situation, and a different way when more than one other person is present. That suggests that he has some idea of what most people consider right vs. wrong and is at least somewhat capable of modulating his behavior. He still acts erratic in the presence of several people, but there doesn’t seem to be any threatening language or intimidating behavior in those cases. Which is perhaps why most people tend to characterize him as merely “abrasive”. He’s far beyond abrasive, alas.

As this chain has progressed it sounds more and more that this is a problem requiring a political/social solution rather than a legal one. It does not sound like there are grounds for a termination, even if you have the funds and the stomach for the battle. That being said, I don't think that inappropriate behavior should be tolerated and it should be documented in a letter to the offender. Keep in mind that the victims of his abuse may not feel comfortable with being named but they should be encouraged to go on record.

We have had similar instances with threats between shareholders that even had witnesses. We presented our attorney with the information who strongly recommended that the victim file a police report. Unless the victim of the abuse is willing to file a complaint you are limited in what you can do. I personally do not believe in making empty and idle threats, so once again documentation is critical. When I reach the point of making a threat, I have every intention of following through with it unless the behavior changes. Otherwise they quickly learn that there are no consequences to their abuse and there are no reasons to stop.

It's important to bear in mind that all the documentation in the world and witnesses may not help circumvent a horrendous legal and psychological nightmare that can go on for years in your co-op. You may not end up recouping your legal costs either, because sometimes you don't get to go to court and get the unit back sans the offensive shareholder. There could be a settlement that is not enough to cover your legal costs. I'd be curious to hear any other Board Talk experience involving terminating a lease and if they in fact covered their expenses. I'm not saying that nothing should be done about the offending SH, but it's not a clear cut path from the first OB letter to a Pullman eviction and your co-op may be in for a costly surprise.

Yes, West Cty Board Member is correct - most leases have a clause citing "Objectionable Conduct" which outlines what actions the board and the shareholders may take. What constitutes "Objectionable Conduct" is not specifically defined so it is critical that you document everything and provide copies to your attorney. If you have witnesses to the behavior, have them provide a written account. I do not know what type of behavior this shareholder is engaged in; however if you feel threatened, file a police report.

This type of behavior occurs more frequently than you may realize and there is no quick solution, but carefully building a case through documentation is critical. Of course if the board is unwilling to take any action, that makes it more difficult but an email, whether they like it or not, IS a record. Why is your board afraid to stand up to this particular shareholder?

Thanks so much for your response, Prez.

Why are most board members afraid to stand up to this particular SH? Wish I knew. He was the board president for a few years a while back and still seems to believe he has some position of authority or even ownership over the building. He has a very paternalistic demeanor which rubs most people the wrong way but perhaps appeals to those who have father-figure issues or who are exceptionally insecure and vulnerable to that sort of thing. Also, heaven help us, he is on the community board, so perhaps people tend to view him as being particularly plugged into the local power structure, or as having some influence.

And I think most people, myself included, simply want to lead quiet lives and are reluctant to get drawn into the firestorms that often seem to surround this guy.

The current situation is quite complicated. The resident who tried to alert one board member via email that she had had what she called a “frightening” encounter with our former board president is actually a sublessee, not a shareholder. From what I am able to determine, the incident appears to have been retaliatory: the sublessee told several people in the building, and also the former management company and the realtor handling her lease, that she had been told by former board president that the co-op’s sublet policy did not apply to her situation, that the shareholder who owns the apartment had effectively been grandfathered in because he already had an agreement in place when the new policy was introduced. Although it wasn’t particularly controversial at the time, for various reasons too complicated to go into, this has suddenly become controversial. The former board president now denies having said this and, by all accounts, is quite upset that the sublessee relayed her understanding of the situation to others.

Allegedly, the former board president cornered the sublessee a couple of weeks ago in the building vestibule, blocking her from exiting the building. He allegedly raged at her and said that she had caused him great harm and had made him “look bad” by telling others that they had had this conversation. After she started crying, he then supposedly told her: “Look, it’s not you that the board is after, it’s the owner of the apartment. You and your daughter are just caught in the crosshairs.” She said that, given the context, she found this metaphor very upsetting and communicated to the SH that she wanted to exit the building.

Because she is a sublessee and not a shareholder, she didn’t know whom to turn to about this and was afraid that reporting it could further jeopardize her situation in the building. Admittedly if I were in her position I wouldn’t know what recourse I had, if any. I suppose she could go to the police, but let me tell you: in an atmosphere of drug dealing, violent muggings and illegal gun sales, I dare say the police have bigger fish to fry.

A fellow board officer was quite emphatic that unless the SH pointed a gun at the sublessee, we shouldn’t follow up on the sublessee’s mention of an incident. This colleague also accused me of having an agenda because I recommended that the board at least make some sort of notation of the reported incident. As a shareholder myself and as someone who has a financial stake in this co-op, I am appalled to hear about such things going on in the building and find it, if true, unacceptable. Note that I am careful to say “if true”. But because I and others have been on the receiving end of this guy’s attempts to intimidate and bully, I can’t help but lean toward believing that what the sublessee reported is, indeed, true.

If objecting to this sort of behavior in our co-op and wanting to at least document it means that I have an agenda, well…

The Pullman decision rears its head yet again. Yes, it's true that you can terminate a shareholder's lease and shares for objectionable conduct if your Proprietary Lease permits it. Sometimes a shareholder vote is required (the Pullman and Lapidus cases); sometimes a board vote alone is sufficient (the Michael Davis case and your own situation, to judge from the lease excerpt you quoted).

The good news is that you will ultimately recoup your legal fees once the objectionable shareholder is ejected and the apartment sold. The bad news is ... well, practically everything else. By all accounts, it's a long, horrible process that can drag on for years. You never EVER want to do this if you have any alternative. And you don't want your building to become known as a place that kicks out people unless you have a really good reason.

The critical issue if you're even vaguely considering a Pullman-style eviction is documentation. And more documentation. You can't have enough. The Michael Davis board-only eviction was upheld largely because the documentation was both compelling and voluminous. The board had tried for years to work with Davis, documenting every step meticulously. They finally gave up and booted him out.

If your board wants to sweep this under the rug and refuses to document anything officially, you might start doing it yourself, as you've already done with your iPhone. You might also talk to both your board and your attorney about the consequences of deliberately concealing a known problem. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like the board could be in a lot of trouble if this aggressive shareholder ends up hurting someone and the board was aware of the issue but tried to hide it.

As I’ve said a couple times now, I would never try to head down the Pullman path. Quixotic, too expensive, too divisive.
. . . it seems like the board could be in a lot of trouble if this aggressive shareholder ends up hurting someone and the board was aware of the issue but tried to hide it.
Agree; this is a real concern and this is why I recommended that the board at least make a notation that a building resident had alerted a board member to a potential (alleged?) problem. Just a little note, with a date, nothing more, in case another event occurs in the future.