from the case, condo buyers should keep the below in mind:
(3) the fact that the absentee-owners
specifically leased their rights to use the condominium's amenities
as part of the lease agreement (the lease agreement states that the
owner-tenant is leasing the common elements from the condominium).
front_porch
about 9 months ago
Posts: 3641
Member since: Mar 2008
Who doesn't pay for their electricity and then fights their condo board?
Rhetorical, obviously, but it definitely shows moxie.
ali r.
DG Neary Realty
NWT
about 9 months ago
Posts: 5412
Member since: Sep 2008
Yes, those litigants with no case but plenty of moxie do help keep the profession going.
That $1600 for 23 months of electricity turned into $3800, after late fees and the cost of the lien. Now, with costs of the dismissed lawsuit added, it'll be real money. Their own lawyer may've worked cheap, but Seyfarth Shaw doesn't.
The condo board just won one: http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/fcas/fcas_docs/2012AUG/3001104462010001SCIV.pdf
Interesting details about condo operation.
from the case, condo buyers should keep the below in mind:
(3) the fact that the absentee-owners
specifically leased their rights to use the condominium's amenities
as part of the lease agreement (the lease agreement states that the
owner-tenant is leasing the common elements from the condominium).
Who doesn't pay for their electricity and then fights their condo board?
Rhetorical, obviously, but it definitely shows moxie.
ali r.
DG Neary Realty
Yes, those litigants with no case but plenty of moxie do help keep the profession going.
That $1600 for 23 months of electricity turned into $3800, after late fees and the cost of the lien. Now, with costs of the dismissed lawsuit added, it'll be real money. Their own lawyer may've worked cheap, but Seyfarth Shaw doesn't.
Moral of the story. Pay your bills
Crappy location. They aren't real NYers.