Hi, I've gone through this recently in a Queens Cooperative that I manage. This was with direction from the coop's attorney as well. With regards to the alteration of the wall, that is probably not only a violation of the Cooperative's policy, it was most likely done without architect oversight and also without a Department of Buildings permit. In the case that it did actually create a new room, this could be an occupancy issue that is changing both the room configuration and as a result, the floor plan that is on file with the city. It is in the best interests of the safety of those in the unit and in the building to have this corrected as this will be considered to be a violation of both the DOB and FDNY should this not be resolved, legally. The issue is that if the DOB comes and gives a violation and subsequent fine or violation that would fall on the Cooperative as they are the entity that owns the building (leasing to the Shareholder). You would probably be best served by talking this out with the Coop attorney to see what the options are in this case.

With regards to the family members living in the unit with the Shareholder, we have just gone through this as well with the Coop's attorney. Based on guidance that was provided in this case, most Proprietary Leases provide for immediate family members to inhabit the unit and that it will not be unreasonably withheld from being permitted. Should the Shareholder be able to provide proof (birth certificates, etc.) that these are, indeed his family members, the Board will not have much success in removing them, even if this is taken to court. Our lawyer has stated that in this case, it is extremely difficult, should they provide proof of immediate family status. The Board may be out of luck on this issue.

Thanks Mark, we are in Queens too. I was pretty sure that would be the answer. Our MA is on the job regarding removal of the wall and we are sending a letter through our lawyer regarding proof that they are his relatives and will also need to do criminal checks. I was hoping that this pattern of lies, he also tried to sneak in a washing machine, would have some bearing if we did decide to go to court. I don't know why he lied regarding the family, it is a 2 bdrm, but he did. Would it be effective to have an addition to the admissions package stating that the applicants understand that the approval of their purchase is based on the information they supplied and the applicants swear that all information in the package is the truth?

It's possible that a statement in the package would have more weight on the Board's view, but that statement may not have any more bearing in the legal system as the courts are more likely to look at law versus coop policies.

I am curious. Is there any possibility of pursuing that the applicant may have committed fraud by lying on the application? Is there any possible outcome from that which will resolve the problems? (either getting the shareholder evicted or at least scared enough to behave?).

As a long time owner/investor/manager, let me say that this board may want to look at the paperwork this new shareholder filled out to review whether on the paperwork/application he put in writing who would reside in the unit. Are there fines established if what is written on application is not adhered to?

Also, look at the alteration agreement that should have been provided, did he indicate he would be altering anything? If he did not, and he made alterations, are there fines established?

At this point, the board must remember that this shareholder lied once, and probably will lie again.

Does he reside in the unit at all? Or is it just his parents and a brother? If they are nice people who are clean and respectful, enjoy each other. If they are causing any problems, be sure to keep a written record.

Yes he lied on his paperwork and said no one else would be living with him, that is why we asked him to confirm that he would be living alone as he was living with his family at the time. No, as I mentioned above, he did not indicate on the AA that he would be putting up a wall. I also mentioned below that he tried to bring in a washing machine. The Board is well aware that he will probably lie again, we expect many. We do believe he is living with his family. As for how enjoyable they are or not that is not the problem.
We now have new neighbors who have shown they are not trustworthy and there seems to be nothing we can do other than fine them. The interview is about whether you feel people will make good shareholders and neighbors, they have already passed the financial terms. I don't believe they will make good neighbors under the circumstances.

You heard correctly: the Roommate Law allows you to have one roommate so long as you are also occupying the apartment. All you need to provide is your roommate's name. It doesn't matter what the coop's proprietary lease says. If your board insists otherwise, have them consult their attorney about the Roommate Law.

I agree - there is nothing they can do about it except apply pressure to you without any legal basis. I hope the pressure does not continue. However and while I am not a lawyer, if they continue to bother you, contact a lawyer about suing them for harassment (both on a corporate and personal basis).

Good luck!

Hi Luisan,

I am taking a leap here and assuming that you are a shareowner. The reason that is it a leap for me is that your e-mail sounds like it is written by a renter.

You sent two checks. It was your error. If you think there is sufficient staff to review every payment (even if it goes directly to the management company instead of a bank lockbox like mine does); you are mistaken. Their focus is on people who don’t pay. And no – they don’t have the staff to read each memo line. Depending on how your payment is processed – it may have been electronically converted too which means that nothing written on the memo line is transmitted to them at all. In short – you may have been writing just to yourself.

In my co-op we have people to pay in advance all of the time for reasons that suit them. We don’t ask about it – we are grateful in that this will usually cover for someone that is late.

If you think about it – you sent funds from your personal account to a company of which you own a part – the funds aren’t stolen – you still own a portion of them through your share interest.

I would suggest that you call it your error and drop the complaining. If you have a problem with one of the charges, bring it up with the Board.

Good luck

As an owner of a management company, many of our clients have their maintenance go directly to a lockbox. In this scenario, each Shareholder sends their maintenance to the address of the maintenance envelope and once it is deposited by the lockbox they credit your account and then transmit the records and the payments into the management software the next day. The people on the other end of your transaction are not looking at each account to see if the maintenance was already received (most companies manage thousands of units and that would be impractical).

Being that you had an open balance, whether or not it was being contested is irrelevant in this scenario. The computer will automatically apply the open balance and then credit the excess.

I can't fault the management company in this scenario as the onus is on the Shareholder to send in the correct amount of maintenance, or in this case, the correct number of checks.

Luisan,

To me it is clear that you are a shareholder. I am not a lawyer but I believe when an amount in dispute once has to be very careful not to pay a penny over the monthly maintenance. Yes it was a mistake to pay twice the same month because of the abuse shareholders suffer; but does not mean you have to accept it to be part of the dispute amount (I wonder if they will use it as you admitting that you have to pay the disputed amount). I would write a certify letter letting them know that you are still disputing the amount. Just make sure from now on you write the date to apply payment to (month and year). Keep sending payment every month and just put to be apply to the correct month (one month in advance to compensate for the 2 payments). If you ever have to go to court you bring all the checks as proof of payments; the judge can read and if housing court does not listen you can always go to appellate court to appeal it. You can call the Bronx Defenders (googgle the address and phone). They might give you legal advice or tell you where to go.

Also be aware that coop abuse is an epidemic. Check out COOPABUSE.COM to read about horrible stories and what we, Cooperative Community Organization, is doing to pass laws to protect our coop homes. At this time we have no right at all. We can be evicted from our home just for a few hundred dollars; specially if one has NO MORTGAGE. We are like third class citizens.

This week we have meetings with two strong politicians and we are to discuss coop issues and how to implement laws to protect our home. I, along with other people, will be representing the Bronx at this meeting. It is important that we fight together against this abuse. Perhaps an issue should be for shareholders to get list of all repairs that the coop has to pay so you don't have to be fight for it. It is sad that shareholders have to spend so much time and money fighting this that should be very clear. Also, it seems that target people to be abuse are shareholders with NO MORTGAGE; it is easier for the coop to take away your home at the housing court level. Shareholders are loosing their homes in housing court and do not have any protection under bankruptcy court.

Email me ROSA.NAZAR@GMAIL.COM to let me what borough you are in (or part of NYS). Today we are fighting together and only VOTING for politicians willing to fight to protect our coop homes. The formation of COOP was a fraud bigger than ENRON and needs to be investigated by the attorney general. Also register in COOPABUSE.COM to get info.

Forest Hills, Queens.
77 units, gorgeous art deco pre war that has been so terribly neglected for so long due to sponsor control!!!

The sponsors in our co op REFUSE to sell, and keep renting their units. They still own 50%!!! We need the AG's office and the politicians to pass a law that forces them to sell.

They keep our co op as a rental with strangers moving in and out and causing damages. I serve on the board, and my shareholders who elect me, feel they bought into a co op, not a rental. When we ask them at an annual or I ask at a board meeting, when they will sell, they say NEVER, and you can't force me!!

Please help!!!

hello,

unfortunately writing something in the memo section of your check doesn't offer you any sort of protection. as others have said, if you want to protest the arrears, handle that officially in writing with your board.

hello,

unfortunately writing something in the memo section of your check doesn't offer you any sort of protection. as others have said, if you want to protest the arrears, handle that officially in writing with your board.

What have they been doing??

I am a seasoned board president and in my opinion you need an attorney that specializes in coops and condo's to do this. Every building is different. Their bylaws vary and the responsibilities of the owners vary. If you don't have a building attorney then search one out.

OK...so can anyone recommend a lawyer who can do this?

I can empathize with your attorney for being vague. Much depends on what the cooperative documents say or don't say.
For example, if the cooperative documents are silent about adding a co-member, the cooperative may take the position of requiring any person applying to be added to an occupancy agreement (proprietary lease) and share to pass the same requirements as any other person making an application for membership.
On the other hand, we know one co-op that adopted a simple and expedited application process for adding a person to the occupancy agreement/share if that person lives violation-free with the current member's household in the respective unit for a year or more.
To obtain clarification on the issue, would discussing this matter with your board or management firm be appropriate?

They may take a position but I think it may be iambiguous. Family members do not have to be approved. Thoughts?

The mortgage is paid.

If family members don't need approval, and unless there is some other procedural obstacle involved, shouldn't your request be placed in a formal writing and submitted to your board?
Do you or your attorney anticipate a problem or potential problem with such a request?

In my coop, we vet the person as if they were looking to purchase. In the event the current shareholder should pass away or move out, we need to know that this person can carry the mortgage, maintenance, etc. in lieu of the current shareholder.

Hi,

I am a co-op president in Inwood, in Manhattan. I would NEVER just add a name to a lease. There are too many kooks out there. Let me turn this on the other foot - would you want to live in building where screening procedures were relaxed? Would you want to raise your family there? I would think most co-ops buyers would say no.

Just have them apply like everyone else does.

Steve

Hi Steve - the lease allows the apt to be passed to a family member without any vetting. Also a domestic partner. This question was soecifiically in regards to adding an immediate family member like and adult child - in this case the family member has been living in the apt a long time.

Hi Steve,
Our co-op charges $500.00 to change/add a name to the proprietary lease and stock certificate. I am told that this procedure has to done by the property manager. Since I do not get along with the PM., I would prefer to use my own attorney.

Do I have the option to use my own attorney or is it mandatory to use the the property manager?

If the parent(s) want to add their child to the stock certificate it would have go thru the buildings attorney, who would have to issue a new stock certificate with the names of all parties on the stock certificate. As for the lease if they are a shareholder their Proprietary lease only have the head of house hold on it. I don't think the board can do anything about who the shareholder puts on their stock certificate.

Someone needs to do a story on L&M Management and follow all the money and complaints from the buildings. Are there any reporters following this blog?

before you do it, check on your liability if you set a minimum price and the seller loses a buyer because of it. somewhere in the back of my mind, and i could be wrong, but I remember that if you do it, you must be prepared to buy the unit. I haven't researched this in a long time and are just going by fuzzy memories, but I do recall some legal responsibilities on the part of the co op.

You might be referring to the 'right of first refusal' where the coop has the right to buy the unit at the offering price. Not sure if this takes precedence over an offer from a buyer. Should be in your proprietary lease if it applies. A sale well below market value has an effect on future sales as it becomes a value for a 'comp'erable sale, used to compare prices for similar apartments. Most coops claim to have the right to refuse a sale for any reason or no reason. In my experience, the boards pay most attention to the financial aspects of the sale. No one wants to deal with a non-payer, evictions or foreclosures.

Right of first refusal is a method boards can use instead of setting floor prices. It is generally used by Condos and is included in their bylaws. For a Co-op board to acquire this power it must be voted on by a majority of its shareholders, as an amendment to its documents. If you are so sure that an apartment is worth more than it is selling for the board can buy it and sell it for a higher price, that is assuming they will get a higher price. In other words put your money where your mouth is. What I am interested in, is hearing from Board members that have instituted floor pricing and finding out if it worked for their Co-ops. Did the value of their shares stay at a desired level, go up, or are apartments languishing on the market looking for buyers as I have read in many articles? Thanks.

I'll answer by telling you what our board has historically done. It is a two part answer. In terms of the escrow, our building has done it anytime we have reservations about borderline finances. We basically tell them they are approved subject to agreeing to put in escrow X number of months. We also tell them that they are welcome to request the escrow be refunded, however, not before at least one year has past. In terms of the price, our policy is to not tell people how to make a deal happen. We only approve it or deny it. We were advised that once you begin to give other information you are increasing the risk of litigation. In your case you would basically be saying that we aren't going to approve your sale because we don't think the price is high enough. We were told that is a valid reason to turn down an application, however, if you tell them, you open the possibility of being sued over whether you have the right to decline on that basis and whether it is good business judgment.

Thank you for your input! The Board did decide to decline the application based on the reasons explained in the original posting. The shareholder is quite upset, however we explained it was the best decision made on behalf of the corporation.