New York City
Northern New Jersey
Search Better With
Shop for a Broker
Open House Planner
Saved Listings & Folders
Stats and Figures
Manhattan Condo Market Index
Facts about New Jersey:
1. North Jersey is the car theft capital of the world, with more cars stolen in Newark then any other city. Even the 2 largest cities, NYC and LA put together.
2. New Jersey has the most diners in the world and is sometimes referred to as the diner capital of the world.
North Jersey has the most shopping malls in one area in the world with seven major shopping malls in a 25 sq. mile radius.
3. New Jersey is the largest chemical producing state in the nation.
Facts about Columbia County, New York
1 Take the Rip Van Winkle Bridge from Columbia County to Greene County
2 Martin Van Buren, the eighth President of the United States, the son of Abraham Van Buren, a farmer of Kinderhook, was born in that town on the 5th of December, 1782. Martin's great great great granddaughter was Lieutenant Anita Van Buren on Law and Order played by S. Epatha Merkerson
3 On your way to Columbia County, up the Taconic, it's just you, the cops and the deer
I said from new jersey jerk off. Read carefully. Terrific place to be from, not necessarily a place to stay.
Huh? Is that like being an illegal alien?
I just scrolled through two pages of non-sense.
There were like three or four people in here who made any sense. (the usual suspects, lol)
The rest was basically "I want to just do things my way"
Get over it, either you want the place or your don't.
It's really that simple.
Sounds like either you had a rookie agent who didn't school you on the process beforehand
You thought you were smart enough to do it yourself and got hit with a little bit of a homework assignment that you can't seem to understand having to complete...
People buying and renting all sorts of properties in this city go through it 10,000 times a year.
If you think what you are dealing with is bad, imagine what the guy who owns the building has to deal with at the end of the year.
Best of luck, sounds like you'll need it!
I wonder how this turns out. Do share.
If you read original post you'll see it was an open question. Was just surprised at how much information they asked and wondered what the legalities were around this. No one really seems to know and clearly this is a grey area that people don't know much about.
In end it is pretty clear - and really always was - my wife will just tell me to shut up and submit the papers.
I was on the board of my condo for 6 years before I recently sold. In general I was suprised how much info we required and it really was brought over by our management company (ie. they advised they do this in other buildings). Our recourse was very limited (right of first refusal) although it seemed to me that the board could extend the decision indefinitely if information it received was not sufficient to make a decision. So this is a risk you are facing that board keeps asking for missing info, and the 30 day requirement gets extended.
"In end it is pretty clear - and really always was - my wife will just tell me to shut up and submit the paper
and then when you have trouble selling the apt because of this very oppressive condo board with all their bylaws and what not you can have your wife pick up some tranquilizers for you. She'll need to shut you up from blaming her for getting into this mess.
Now do you really think all you have to do to make this condo board happy is to submit the paperwork they asked for. lol
It's all the management company, when I bought my condo Cooper Square just came in as the building's new management company and they used their Co-op app for the condo. I thought it was ridiculous but I just filled it all out anyway. If you're financing you have to do the same BS for your lender anyway, minus the letters of recommendation (which I agree was just silly), so just suck it up. It's definitely annoying but in the end do you want someone in your building not paying their common charges? I agree that its not really used as an "approval" for the buyer but more as a background check and confirmation of them being a good tenant in general. Obviously depends on the building but in the end I almost appreciate the the fact that it's their.
The fees are annoying, though, to me that is the more absurd art.
Back here but not really back here. But here on this thread.
I'm here today and also in Cindy Adams' column in the Post and the Post online. So I'm in two places at once in cyberspace.
I told you that the application process is a money maker for Management Companies like Cooper Square.
There is no legal basis, and I would like to see someone's sale get stalled because they refused to cater to the application process. Then, a lawsuit....
the residents in this condo must be like a piggy bank for the management company. You want to paint your room pay me 1000 bucks to fill out application. You want to install a new toilet pay me 500 to let you do that.
The management companies are paid a yearly fee. Around 38k for a 75-100 unit condo building.
They get to keep the application fees? I thought it was a moneymaker for the coop/condo reserve fund.
Truth, no, it is an additional service that the management company pockets. Funny, since it has no basis in anything. And, I think your number is low for an annual fee.
Yup: $300 for the application package and $125 for each person for a credit check. I kind of imagine it is likely the management company as well, and do think it is dumb. If you cover your basis you could make it so they can't send you back for more info. Just see what is in by laws, make sure you give it all and then send it by registered mail. That is your thirty days. They can't keep sending you back for frivolous information like what high school I attended (which they ask).
If you dont have the money canuck, why are you considering the purchase? And if you do, then please just shut the fuck and either buy it. Or dont.
well said Jim --Gee, I thought I would never say that.
The by-laws don't detail what's required in the package, just that it's what the board "may reasonably require," as the typical language puts it.
The managing agent will let you know what that is.
renterjoey, a management company (or condo board) can't require you to request approval for anything as basic as replacing a toilet(unless plumbing is actually affected) or painting. You need contractors to be insured and abide by building hours/rules...etc. but there should never be an approval or application (let alone a fee) for something that doesn't require actual changes to the floor plan, plumbing or major electrical changes. I had a dozen recessed lights installed along with a few switches changed out and outlets added. There were no approvals needed for any of it...co-op on the other hand, probably would have been required.
NWT: Yes is very broadly worded. And I re-read the by-laws and I think they can even get the 30 day clock to reset. But must be reasonable. If anyone pursued it the board members could be personally liable. First, you would have to consider the basic purpose of the condo board which is to administer the common elements of a building. Second, denying someone the right to alienate their personal property is anathema in the US legal system. Third, if the board was going beyond its duties to protect the common interest and stringing someone along it would undoubtedly be seen as bad faith. Fourth, in my by-laws board members are immune from personal liability, "unless they act in bad faith." So if board was really going beyond their duties, which in the case of the sale would, IMO be ensuring that someone had an income source to pay common fees, then I don't think it would be a stretch to hold them liable.
Again, just don't get why they bother. Nothing good can come of it - although as pointed out the management company does well.
>But must be reasonable.
If you say so.
>If anyone pursued it
What do you mean "pursued it"
And who is anyone? The only person who has rights is the owner. Not the prospective buyer until the buyer becomes the owner.
>the board members could be personally liable.
Liable for what?
>Second, denying someone the right to alienate their personal property is anathema in the US legal system.
Huh? American English please, not Canadian jibber jabber
>Third, if the board was going beyond its duties to protect the common interest and stringing someone along it would undoubtedly be seen as bad faith.
Bad faith to whom? It sounds like good faith to the owners. The board has a responsibility to the owners, and the owners only. The prospective buyer is still a third party.
>Fourth, in my by-laws board members are immune from personal liability, "unless they act in bad faith." So if board was really going beyond their duties, which in the case of the sale would, IMO
What does IMO mean?
>be ensuring that someone had an income source to pay common fees,
So nothing else matters besides income to pay common fees? If the board wants to know you aren't a criminal, you didn't have a bad history in your prior residence, etc., if you weren't a scumbag ... all of those make the board BAD? Even though those are things that a co-op board has long looked for, but when applied to a condo board, it's suddenly bad faith
>then I don't think it would be a stretch to hold them liable.
Can you cite one court case where they were "held liable".
Also, after being "held liable" what do you think happens? And after all this time, do you still want to move in? Isn't the apartment you are buying just across the hall from the board president you just sued. Oh that must be pleasant for the rest of your time living in the building.
gcondo: They get paid to manage the building AND they get money for "additional services"? What a rip off.
The 38k figure came from the financials of my former condo building. 38k per year. It was too much for the "work" received.
huntersburg: That's correct.
trying to hold them "liable": the seller will have sold it to another buyer.
A seller isn't going to sit around waiting to sell the unit while a buyer wastes time in court.
If the waste of time with the application process (and I agree, no need for certain info)is annoying -- you don't want to go to court with it. That will really annoy you.
"Blow me, your Honor".
Huntersburg: Here are many cases that delve into the personal liability, which occurs if they overstep. And yes, it would be difficult not being a party to the contract (by-laws) but if you look at Biondi board members were held personally liable and that was for turning down a rental application. Suffice to say there is loads out there, if someone really cared to bother, but you would have lost apartment.
That's what I'm saying, Ottawanyc.
If you want to get out of noisy Union Square and you found an apt you like, submit the package to the board.
Once you are living there you may find other things that really annoy you.
And if the board is doing things that are illegal and you have the time and money, you can get all legal tone with them.
Well, thanks for the links.
The first one didn't work.
The other two discuss a relationship between a board and the owners or resident shareholders. You aren't either.
They do talk about bad faith, such as rejecting a rental applicant on the basis of race. What is your claim again, that the condo is acting like a co-op and you don't like it, so that's bad faith?
You do need to have a real beef with them, Ottawa.
Truth: Yes I know. I don't have a beef - as originally mentioned was just surprised, annoyed. Not actively considering suing anyone.
Discussion went down a path of hypotheticals that related to comments to the effect that condo boards are essentially free to do what they want. In that scenario the idea that they could string people along with applications until they got annoyed and moved on. That was why the stuff on liability/bad faith came up. But yes, of course, at end of day you kind of just have to do it if you want the place. Never said I would not, still annoying though...
Do they also do interviews, test pets behavior, check references, and view Facebook accounts? Is there a convern about pied-à-terre buyers.
stop stop stop it already stay in Canada please don't move here. I always thought Canadians were nice people but now I realize how annoying some of them can be.
and they didn't ask you, albeit, ostensibly "optional" what organizations you belong to?????????//
just put down the KKK. and see what happens, optional question. you can always say that you never checked it off....
Ottawa: Yes it's annoying but save your strength for future annoyances when you move in.
Eumendides: No board interview in condo buildings.
Some co-op boards will have the buyer bring the pooch in to the interview with them. Others have weight/size restrictions for dogs.
They don't check the reference letter-writers. Co-ops might but I've never heard from a board contacting me to check if I really did write a reference letter.
They do check facebook.
In a condo you can pied-a -terre. In a co-op usually not.
Re: condos and "ease" of renting. Have a friend who is going to be renting another friend's condo. "move in fee", (and as the apartment is being rented furnished, all that will be moved in is clothing and some sheets and towels), $1,000 EACH from the owner and the prospective renter (and that is for a 1 BR 1.5 Bath apartment - the fees rise with the size of the apartment). $450 fee to management company. $175 for the personal credit check required from the renter.
Definitely, the "fancier" condos try to discourage rental - want to act more like coops.
Guess what if the friend wants to stay another year he better cough up another 1000 bucks. Each renewal probably will require 1000 from renter and a 1000 from owner. Maybe next time your friend's fried should of read the bylaws before he bought that fancy condo.
No, I am pretty sure the move-in fee is a one-time thing, no matter how long the term and renewals.
And my friend should have gotten a clue when her father bought it for her, all cash, and they put HIM through all the same BS (financial info, recommendation letters, etc. etc.)
I am quite confident that if your friend wants to renew they will go after the owner for fees. It's not a one time fee for the owner if he renews the lease with the same renter.
The legal concept is this; the condo board CANNOT turn you down unless they purchase the unit themselves. Simple as that, that is the law.
Meanwhile, the rest is just you being courteous to your fellow residents.
We own a condo, so I actually know.
>needs advice - have you ever rented out your apartment? Get back to the board when you've done that. Basically upscale condos try as hard as they can to make it difficult/annoying for the owner to rent. When you see so many posts here on SE about buying a condo so it can be rented out later, it just says condo ownership is overrated in that regard
OttawhyRUinNYC, you seem to be extremely unpleasant in your quest for foreign purchase. You are bitter that your 'financials' are not good enough, you question the reasoning behind what you want isn't good enough for the seller. And now have a wife? Condo Boards are like private clubs and they do have the right to do whatever they want, along with the Management Company in place. If you cannot meet the guidelines, go back to Canada. We do what we do here, you do what you do there. If you want to question it, bring it up in person to the Board, Mgmt Co, or your "wife"..you have excessive cash from countless BS deals that you have done and now you realize that you are way too late to purchase..you missed the boat a few years back and now you find that the price for what you want, honestly, costs more than what you bargained for..either except your present losses + future gain or go home. You're really becoming an annoying renter that wants to bitch until they get what they can't afford..if you have to ask, you cannot afford it, we Americans say..and you have been asking a lot..
Stockholm Syndrome, much?
nyc10023, you nailed that one.
I was just looking at package requirements for various condos at www.ellimanpm.com, and they're all a PITA. Since co-ops hardly ever turn anyone down either, the only effective difference is no condo interview, and that's the fun/quick/easy part.
I'd love to hear of anyone getting past the fact that the 20-30 day clock for the condo to issue the waiver doesn't start until the managing agent says the package is complete, and you can't do anything without that waiver.
If I'm not being lazy, I try to understand what the status quo is. Question assumptions, accept nothing. Sometimes rules don't mean much, especially if there is no way to enforce.
Ottawanyc brought up a good point about condo packages - what is legally allowable under condo's own rules and real estate law. Assuming that all that the package is asking for is legal under the condo's rules and doesn't trigger any discrimination laws, then it seems that unless a package is "complete", the clock doesn't start ticking on right of first refusal. So a condo closing is held up indefinitely because the clock never started to tick. Because (I've never purchased a condo), I'm assuming that the bank requires condo approval paperwork.
Now, imagine this scenario. What if a purchaser decided to pay all cash, or if an owner decided to gift the unit or any scenario that doesn't require a mortgage, can the owner have the deed recorded and thus have it be legally binding w/o benefit of condo board approval? And once the deed is recorded, unless the board is prepared to exercise right of first refusal, what can the condo board do to prevent possession of the apartment?
What they can do is not allow the move-in to take place.:
Super doesn't allow the movers in, managing agent calls the police.
Cops arrive. The super and/or managing agent tell them there is no move-in date set for this and "possession" will not take place because the cops will leave stating: "This is a civil matter".
Unless there is pushing/shoving or threatening.
Then any involved are taken to the local precinct.
The moving truck is taking the furniture to their storage facility.
NWT: yes, as I am going through this you realize that power is all in the managing agent's hands. Give us, this, that, the other or we won't even submit your package. At end of day you just don't have time to fight with them lest the process stalls. I suspect that board members probably don't even realize what is going on or what is normal, differences that should exist with condo v. co-op board. And I am 99% sure that you need the sign off before you can close. As to question, you need board approval for any transfer of ownership, which is usually just an automatic, but not in these cases, which actually goes against condominium ownership.
As the deed says, ownership is "subject to the rights, obligations, easements, restrictions and other provisions set forth in the Declaration and By-Laws, all of which shall bind...." and buyer "agrees to comply with all terms and provisions thereof."
In other words, the condo can "reasonably require" just about anything, and closing can't/won't happen without that waiver.
I think you're taking the right tack toward it all. Nothing wrong with venting a little.
But, if you're in, you're in. Meaning that if you had the deed recorded (subject to X) and moved yourself in somehow, it's not that easy for the condo to eject you, and they might have to prove that they really would have exercised that right of first refusal.
How can a move-in take place "somehow"?
">needs advice - have you ever rented out your apartment? Get back to the board when you've done that. Basically upscale condos try as hard as they can to make it difficult/annoying for the owner to rent. When you see so many posts here on SE about buying a condo so it can be rented out later, it just says condo ownership is overrated in that regard"
@PH41: Sure, we do it all the time. It's not a problem, but we double-checked all the rules BEFORE we bought, since renting it out was on our checklist.
To your point, PH41, there were many condos that were pulling a bait-an-switch on rentals. You have to read closely to find "one year of renting, one year off" or "rentals not to exceed 3 out of 5 years", that kind of thing.
Has anyone had experience with a seller who protracts the closing for a ridiculous amount of time. she does not live there . not rented. MAIN QUESTION, is , is the waiver that the condo board issues. limited timewise. in other words, if we don't close for 6 months (hypothetically) beyond waiver date is that OK????? hope some of the real SE gurus can weigh in on this, and if i could get an answer from either broker or lawyer, i wouldn't be asking here......I have not been privvy to see waiver.
If the condo board has approved you for the purchase, they have waived their right of first refusal. You need to read the actual by-laws to get your proper answer but in a typical transaction, once it's waived for this purchase, it's waived. If a new offer comes in later and they submit a new application, different story. If you are able to prove that this is a continuing process and a single transaction, there is no justification for the "waiver" to expire unless it explicitly says so in the by-laws or offering plan.
With the caveat that I hate answering questions for people who are paying another broker who ought to be answering them - gg what you will see will not be the waiver, it will be the "certification" of the waiver, and I think your answer will be in that.
Go ahead and close and come be my neighbor already!
DG Neary Realty