Hi,

For my co-op, the issue is about giving the shareholders flexibility while keeping an eye on owner-occupancy. Any sublet decreases owner occupancy and we charge for all. We had a 2 year policy and extended it for a temporary 3rd year when the market tanked. We throttled back to 2 years this year when we learned about the stringent owner occupancy requirements on shareholder mortgages approval that Fannie and Freddy were imposing. We may have to throttle back even one year. My suggestion is to enforce the fee as a deterrent and to explain why (Fannie/Freddy and owner occupancy).

Good luck!

The BOD in our building accepts any and every explanation that a shareholder gives, so we have many illegal sublets. How do you suggest that we require that the BOD enforce our sublet policy, which states that a shareholder can sublet for two years with 10% of the maintenance paid to the corp. as a sublet fee,

The BOD likes to call the illegal sublets, roommates, even though the shareholder is absent. This is a fair and easy way to raise funds, but the BOD would rather raise the maintenance and cost of amenities while allowing illegal subletting. The president of the Board insists that we cannot prove that the shareholder illegally sublets their apartment
.

This sounds so familiar, the same is happening in my building. The president of our BOD who always claims fiduciary responsibility and liability, has a signed contract on her apartment and is selling, yet makes decisions on finances and does nothing about illegal sublets. We have illegal sublets for years without any fee. Certain members consistently say it cannot be proved. Yet the shareholder is not living in said apartment. They seem to circumvent our offering plan and by-laws to their advantage. I've spoken to attorney's and was told that the burden of proof is on the shareholder, but certain members of our board insists that the burden is with the co-op. Can anyone shed light on this?

These are short-term sublets in the same apt - over and over - to current shareholders who are renovating . Not sublets to outsiders. They - nor the owner of the apt - pay the usual fee to the coop - is this a bad idea?

Tammy, yes, it's a bad idea without a fee. Even though they are are shareholders, they are not shareholders of the unit in which they are currently living. They are sublets and should be paying the sublet fee.

i had read that to qualify for a roommate status in a coop, the shareholder must be living in the apartment with the roommate.
Similar to the "and" "or" wording in paragraph 14 of the proprietary lease concerning right to occupy.
I have been battling the same issue in this co-op, many of the coops have been occupied by the adult sons or daughters of the new shareholders, plus the prospective shareholder who attended the interview , stated that they were going to occupy the apartment and never mentioned the child, and the apartments were studio or 1 bedrooms.
I had asked this question in the NY times, disguising non-owner occupied apartments as owner occupied for better sale prices, meeting mortgage requirements for banks. The answer was, it is mortgage fraud and to contact your local mortgage fraud unit, in my case the DA

Efy, thanks for the mortgage fraud information. I think my building must go that route as we are out of options and do not have the support of the board. They cover it up.

I am a resident manager/superintendent and any time I go on vacation I inform the BOD, and also the property manager. I make sure the staff have ample supplies to carry out their duties and also go over what they should do in case of an emergency. (supers are entitled to vacation). In addition I post emergency contact numbers at the desk (which would also include some supers close by).
As regards on call 24/7 technically yes, for emergencies. Regarding the super his wife and child, not a good idea to bring baby to work. I would say is the work being done or are you just micromanaging?

I'm just seeing the kinds of situations that exist out there. I'm not micromanaging anything. I'm sure the super lets our office manager know when he is away, but a simple email to the board takes no more than 2 minutes to send. Just seeing how the rest of the world operates. Thank you for your input.

You raise several important topics.
In a building staffed with both a live-in superintendent and an onsite management office staffed with a building manager and administrator (superintendent’s wife), the Board of Managers should be informed in advance of all schedule vacation days. This is especially important for you because the vacation affects two of your staff members. I would recommend (1) at each Board meeting the superintendent and building manger alert you to vacation time they will be taking prior to the next Board meeting and (2) you limit the consecutive vacation days that your superintendent can take without prior Board approval.
Live-in superintendent is technically on call 24/7 so that the Board of Managers is in compliance with NYC Housing Maintenance Code (chapter 2, subchapter 2, article 13).
Staffing is within your control as a Board of Managers. As a firm we don’t employee family members of current employees and recommend buildings we manage follow a similar policy. Living where you work is part of the superintendent’s position. This is hard. Adding another family member to the same work place can make issues multiply. It can also make your building feel more like a community. Your Board needs to make the decision and move forward.

This is playing out across the city, smaller co-ops with large underlying mortgages. In each situation the mortgage may be granted due to a particular circumstance, such as need to for capital improvements, large footprint etc.
What are the details of the mortgage – 30, 40, 50 or interest only amortization schedule? What is the rate? What were the funds used for?
What I have found in 15 years of involvement with various co-ops is there is impression that maintenance can always be raised so the mortgage should not be an issue. The sponsor mindset and many but not all shareholders are defer as much as possible – keep the maintenance payments small, pay the mortgage down just enough to roll into the next refinance. Eventually the co-op will be in precarious situation of a large underlying mortgage with a higher rate and payment amount.
Evaluate your next moves. Is refinance period coming up, has maintenance been raised enough to cover the mortgage and are you contributing routinely to the reserve fund?
I applaud the co-ops that have taken steps to pay down mortgages and maintain finances in a conservative manner.
For those with a large sponsor presence – such as my building – we have an uphill battle to the responsible thing for all shareholders even if it costs a little bit more.

By the way –we are having this very debate right now, as our mortgage is due in December, 30 vs 40 is all the rage.

One reason I can see that the sponsor wants to take an additional $350K of equity out of the building is to increase the capital reserve fund. If Billy Joe heard somewhere that the sponsor was doing this to make the units more attractive to buyers, having a healthy reserve fund is an important factor. Co-op mortgage lenders look closely at building finances before committing. An anemic capital reserve fund makes it much more difficult for a perspective buyer to get a mortgage.

The 90 day rule does exist. Also, if there are cats in the building then it is not a No-Pet building. It's unfair to allow cats and say No-Pets. This can be fought but if the pet is there over 90 days it becomes quite difficult. I myself am a Pet Lover and feel they do add to ones life. Good luck with this issue.

It IS NOT only the 90 day rule that you MUST adhere to. Before TRYING to institute any action against a pet owner make certain that the dogs ARE PETS. UNDER FEDERAL LAW ALL SERVICE DOGS and SOME EMOTIONAL SUPPORT ANIMALS ARE NOT PETS. They are NECESSARY for the persons livelihood. I faced this issue when I lived in NJ and moreso living in NY. I have a small dog that IS TRAINED as a DIABETIC ALERT SERVICE DOG. I presently live in a condo with my mother & in November I was sent a letter by the building manager stating that ALL DOG OWNERS would have to pay $100 A YEAR to keep their dogs & also provide DOCUMENTATION. Again according to the Americans with Disabilities Act THE BUILDING CANNOT CHARGE ME TO KEEP MY SERVICE DOG HERE. I also DO NOT have to provide documentation. FYI: There is NO SUCH THING as CERTIFICATION for Service Dogs in NY or NJ & many other states. Under the ADA Service Dogs DO NOT even have to wear vests or anything identifying them. If there is a question regarding whether or not a dog is a Service Dog BY LAW you can only ask 2 questions:

1) Is the dog necessary to assist you with a medical or psychiatric condition?

2) What duties is the dog trained to perform?

In response to the second question in the case of someone that has a Diabetic Alert Service dog an answer of "the dog alerts me to a medical conditon" is a sufficent answer. A Service Dog handler is protected from revealing ANYTHING that would reveal the exact nature of their medical or psychiatric problem.

Before taking ANY ACTION against ANYONE it would behoove you to go to Google (or use another search engine) AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT SERVICE DOGS. You will find a wealth of information & learn what you can & cannot do. This VALUABLE INFORMATION can protect you from possibly being sued later.

Peg Meerkatz
Disability Advocate, President
EsperanzaEnterprises

I agree with Peg Meerkatz. Also please note, that if this is a Senior, many have pets not only for Emotional Support, but Companion Support, courts generally rule with that in mind. Kudos to you Peg for bringing this up. Pets do become a family member. One of your concerns were dogs having accidents, understandable, you wouldn't give a human up because they were old and frail. There should be a little more compassion, these pets are as important as a child to many people.

If one is feeling no compassion, and one is in a no-pets building, perhaps one should move somewhere else. Insisting on having a companion animal -- i.e. a pet -- in a no-pet building is unconscionably selfish. It completely discounts the reasons why people want to live in a no-pet (or no-dog) building, and says to them, "My reason is better than yours." You have a psychological condition you think requires a companion dog? Others have a psychological or health conditions that precludes being around dogs that could jump up or snap at them, create allergy and dander issues, create disgusting smells, etc. Your psychological condition doesn't trump anyone else's. No one's disputing seeing-eye dogs. But now everyone who wants a pet is abusing a legal loophole and saying, "Oh, I want a dog, I'll claim I'm depressed and just have my doctor write a note saying whatever I tell him to." Thanks a lot.

What Exactly does the policy state? Many times verbal policies are passed down like the telephone game . They often are not what the written policy states. Our policy is in the house rules. It is nothing like the verbal policy that people and board members,management company state.
Most people in my building do not know how to read. Written policy rules.

This is the most ignorant thing I have ever heard...ever.

No, YOURS is the most ignorant comment. Habitat did a whole article on this very subject, of selfish scammers who use fake "certifications" and otherwise corrupt the system so they can have pets in no-pet buildings.

The Americans with Disabilities Act does not apply to private residences. It applies to public and semipublic (hotels, restaurants) spaces. The Fair Housing Law applies. But not ADA.

Thank you everyone for the great info. So NJ does indeed have the 90 day rule. Can anyone give me the specific law # so that I can reference it. I have not had luck finding it online, but will continue my search. I see the NY law was clearly mentioned in a few other postings.

Yes, there is at least one therapy/medically advised pet for a woman with cancer and I've advise the board she should just provide us with a letter from her doctor that he recommended her getting a pet.

Thank you, we will look into the emotional support animals as well as some of the very elderly in my building may have them for that reason. The other pets are mostly cats and the kitty litter down the trash shoot is really a problem.

We are not trying to prevent service dogs.

We still plan on maintaining our "pet free" status.

All the comments and advise in response to your concerns are spot on, but that does not allow ESA and service animals to become nuisances or destroy other neighbors peaceful and quiet enjoyment of their homes. If any of these animals bark incessantly, have accidents that are left in the public spaces, pose a threat to residents and guests, or cause an apartment to smell so bad it the odors migrate into the public spaces or adjacent apartments, Boards have the right to pursue remedies for removal of animals because they are breaking other house rules on issues of quality of life and, in some cases, health department issues. Train your service dogs and ESAs so they are not disturbing your neighbors!

people would need to know if it is coop or condo.
If co-op, subleasing IMO is against the very reason people buy co-ops. Short term to get a buyer is one thing .
condo's is a whole different situation

In agreement with efy. Subleasing is against the very reason people buy co-ops. Why not rent? Co-op living should be exclusive not to rent / sublease.

Sorry...this is a condo...thx.

The board really should not legislate a unit-owner's participation in the co-op's or condo's governance. There might be very good reasons why a unitowner cannot return for the annual meeting, military committment being one. If you start carving out exceptions, you'll wind up with something that resembles the federal tax code. :-)

What the board should mandate is that all unitowners who know they will be away from their units for longer than a specified time (2 weeks, month, etc) pay some nominal fee to have the super or whoever maintains the common structures enter the apartment and perform a general safety review. Simple things like making sure the electricity and gas are turned off or aren't leaking, no water problems with leaks or overflows, no signs of damage like from an upstairs leak, things like that. The board's first concern should be the safety and security of the building. If a unit owner is not going to be present for an extended period of time, I don't think a nominal fee to have a surrogate like the super perform simple safety and security checks is inappropriate

even coop owners have protection against someone entering their apartment unless it is an emergency. Opening the building up to charges of theft, etc.
It has to be an bonafide emergency to enter the apartment , like a leak downstairs and the apartment above the empty apartment has no leak. i am sure once a leak above was repaired , and it was obvious that the middle apartment must have water damage , after trying to contact the owner to let them know what was going on, the building could enter for mold mitigation measures and structural checks.

I suggested a fee to (1) force the apartment owner and the board to come to an agreement on entry conditions, and (2) to reimburse the board for the time the super (or whoever) has to spend performing an out-of-band chore for this one particular shareholer.

we need a new set of laws or co-op state board to ensure that shareholders are treated properly and within the boundaries of the law.
The AG is useless and anyone that runs into the uselessness of the AG office on co-ops should write letters to their state senators and the AG himself.
Put everything in writing, fax and get the receipt, better certified mail, but that is such a pain in in the butt for me. to the co-op board, in my case they refuse to give me the co-op BOD contact info, and some say they live in the building, yet have not in 7 years,, and one has never occupied the apartment his son lives in, yet he states he lives here. Fraud and i am reporting it along with mortgage fraud to the DA.
I also hate the amount of time i have to spend researching everything and typing up letters, yet the other shareholders prefer to believe the fraudulent details given to them by the board,since they want to sell and move. I don't blame them, but that just keeps the problems happening, until a buyer with a set , realized they have been scammed and has the spine to take action and sue.

1) Ask some longtime residents what has been traditionally repaired by the coop.

2) Make a list: Usually: washers for drips in sinks, showers and toilets, changing plugs and light-switches, plaster and prime coat paint when there has been an in-the-wall leak, window problems, radiator leaks, snaking drains, etc.

3) If staff does any work beyond the traditional repairs it could be that, legally, the staff member is a independent contracctor without workmans comp and the coop could be laible. Be careful. Put your policy in writing.

4) Find a good licenced handyman (outside the bldg) or two that the building can recommend for minor work by residents and give out his/her name and number.

i wouldn't want the super moving furniture, even if it was billable,unless small items, with everything cleared off. To much risk of injury , and if furniture is expensive , claims to co-op. I worked for a public utility and we had to do installs inside the house, we were told never to move furniture, that is the customers responsibility. even changing bulbs, is more of a favor, but not a requirement to a resident. Tough to draw a line, since when in the apartment to work on a covered item, before they leave they could change a light bulb. Since tips are given to the super at the holidays, the light bulb changing fee is kinda included in them. The co-op i live in also tips the super and to my total opposition, the managing agent. Who doesn't even do the basic work required of him. We had fire dept fines for fire door rusted shut and unable to be opened, yet they tip and give raises, it's the prez in cahoots with the managing company with a puppet board.

If you really think about it - it is just a bad idea to allow staff to do side jobs. You open the coop to hundreds of dollars being used in building supplies (plaster, etc) to say nothing of liability issues and conflicts of interest regarding priorities towards regular building maintenance. Many buildings are told otherwise - usually by the managing agents or the board members hwo gett treated favoribly by staff. Beware.

As far as what people say has been the historical supers duties in the building, People pass down what they want you to believe or what someone told them , but not what the house rules state. Our house rules state that the super is not allowed to do any personal work or errands for the residents.

your second scenerio is correct, the number of shares owned multiplied by amount of increase.

In a strict tecnical sense, shareholder financial oblications like maintenance and assessments are calculated on a "per-share" basis. If your board has approved a 15% maintenance increase, it means that the amount of maintenance every shareholder in your building pays is being increased by 15% for each share they own. Assessments are usually calculated by "X number of dollars per share"