Subscribe for Daily Updates!
Small co-op formed in the 1980's by residents in the building which ran the board until late 2000's. Mostly, they "ran" and controlled everyone new to building. The commercial space which was sublet by a second Corp. (run and owned by original coop members) income went directly to them and they paid the coop very low "rent" . It's only been the last 5 years that a new board was voted in and the PL , Houserules and protocols were put in place.
The board is now asked by one of the original founders (who had been Board President for 24 years - doing very little to upgrade building and mostly was self serving) to "waive" the process for adding his new wife to the stock cert. His wife has also been a resident since 1980's. His position is that he and his wife have been residents of the building for over 20 years and shouldn't have to follow protocols for "new" people coming into the building. There is also fees involved which go to the managing agent (not the building) for processing fees.
The process, btw, is similar to refinancing requirements etc. Credit and lein checks, recent tax reports, etc.
Any thoughts on this? We waive it once then it must be waived for all.
Sue:
Like you, we too believe making an exception in this case could create a precedent for other long-time residents to seek shareholder or co-shareholder status. But we also agree with Minneapolis that a long-term resident shouldn't encounter the same level of scrutiny as would a new applicant.
For this reason we typically suggest co-ops have or adopt a provision that provides an expedited, simplified and reduced fee process for a long-time resident who requests to be added to an existing share, as in the cited case. The process we recommended usually includes a review of the resident's occupancy experience within the cooperative, among other things.
However, an exception should not be a "seat-of-the-pants" event. It should be codified (with a set of standards to be met) as a written addition to the co-op paperwork -- subject to attorney review -- then voted upon favorably by shareholders to better ensure a majority agreement with the change and to help safeguard against forgetfulness or preferential treatment playing a role when the exception is implemented.
The exception should be structured so that it does not become a new member application loophole.
Adding a second party to the stock certificate should be akin to approving a buyer. In the event the original party should pass away, can the second party maintain the maintenance payments? I can't think of any of the units we sold with 2 names on the share certificate where the sale would have occurred without the combined wages. Would you allow a couple to add their 18 year old? Parents move out, and leave the teen behind, legally entitled to live there.... As a minimum, assets and liabilities, life insurance and employment, credit history should be examined.
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.
Hi there. I don't think you need to worry not doing a background check on a current resident in this very specific situation will set a precedent against doing due diligence towards new members who have no prior relationship to the building. If this woman has been living in your building for twenty years there's no need to make her undergo a credit check, tax reports, etc. unless your goal is to make the useless former president jump through hoops, which you, as the new board, are entitled to do if you see fit and that's within the rules.
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.