Subscribe for Daily Updates!
a neighbir was trying toi sell and found a god buyer, a woman that had previously liced in the buikldinf iiver 2o years and now has family members here. a good stable resident.
the buyer was informed shae jhasto put 15 % down and 6 months maint and 6 months mortgage upfront.
this is the firsr we have ever haeard of the 6 months maint and mortgager payment s uop front.
we have never hrecievied a letter , it was never anounced at the last annaul meeting 0. no one is going to buy
in out building with thse requrements. it is not a tony buildimg, a basic 6 story brick, with an elevator, no amaenties no pool.
this sme board had turned the buiding into a rntal buiding, i counted 30 of 59 were occupied by shareholders. it used to be 80 percent , and very stringent.is there anything i can do as a shareholder to force the board to follow the nys courts ruling concerning ch 14 of the proprietary lease, the "and" "or" wording. my proprietary lease states shareholder "and" and that is why i consider the never occupied by shareholder as nit owner occupied. Many of these resident never went before the board for the interview, their parents did,however the parents never moved in.
Can you be a little more clear about the details? When did the board tell the buyer of these requirements? How did you find out? Do you know when or why the board decided to enact these rules?
Have you brought up the renting problem to anyone else?
As a managing agent, I recommend that the building's attorney be made aware of this situation especially if the authori is correct and no notice was provided to shareholders. My firm had a similar situation with a coop in Brooklyn where it became clear that the board were making decisions that were favorable to friends and less favorable to what they called "problematic shareholders." As agents we decided to terminate the management agreement.
i know the seller very well, what in our opinion looked like a better buyer, they had a friend from work whose 30-year-old son was looking for a place, however he didn't have 15% down, so that didn't look like it would work out.
i found out since the seller contacted me as soon as the buyer called her.
the buyer had called the management company, or whoever they were supposed to contact, that is when the buyer was told of this previous unheard of 6 and 6 extra charge. The buyer contacted the seller who contacted me to see if I had ever heard of this provision.
This buyer looked like a perfect shareholder for the building, since they lived here as the building was converting to a co-op around 25 years ago. They also have other family members that are shareholders here.
sorry about the atrocious spelling in the first question, I couldn't find an edit button, and I think it got sent before it went through the spell checks. I can barely read it and I wrote it, wish there was an edit feature. i may have to rewrite it later.
As far as the ratio of rentals, there is one person on board with me, another original shareholder, i looked around trulia and noticed there were a couple other apartments for sale by shareholders. So they just want out. Another person i spoke to thought bringing it up at the annual meeting was a good idea, this was months ago.
i believe in researching the options and knowing the correct answers, remember this is the building where the managing agent tells the shareholders that they are not entitled to a copy of the shareholders, and the BOD refuses to make known their contact information. the president and vice president are related and inside deal the parking spaces for their kids, skipping shareholders on the waiting list.
And to top it off the president had asked this seller to rent the apartment to one his kids who was getting married shortly.
It may be that the board had doubts about the buyer's ability to pay maintenance - irregular income, for example - and to cover assessments (should they arise), but did not want to disallow the sale entirely. In cases such as this, the board's entirely within its rights to require financial "guarantees" such as 6 months' maintenance up front - or any other arrangement the board feels will offer proof of financial stability.
That money should be placed in an escrow account, I believe.
can the board pick and choose who they require this from, in other words, not everybody needs this , but only certain people?
and would the board as a whole have to vote on this requirement?
i wonder if the people doing the interview are just making things up as they go along, without the rest of the board approval, or notice.
i know that not all the BOD members knew anything about it.
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.
Please review spelling before sending
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.