Condo board won't let us in. Please help.

This is a legal question. Speak to your lawyer.

Your lawyer will be in the best position to advise you and respond appropriately.

The lawyer doesn't think there's anything to be done. Does anyone disagree?

Your lawyer should be familiar with real estate law and hopefully saw the condo by-laws. It's unlikely anyone on this site will be in a position to offer superior advice. It does stink though. Why not just move on?

Review the by laws, the odds they have no legal right to block the sale. The ROFR means they buy the unit (exercise their right) or you do (they waive the right).

Also assuming the condo board is wrong, would you be willing to deal with the lawyer costs in pursuing this?

fatrabbit: There are other condos on the market. Find one that is not against having kids living in your unit.
You will know because the managing agent will not ask for a kid-count per bedroom.
Not all condo Boards operate lawfully and their managing agents are puppets to those Boards.
The Board and managing agent there are already presenting problems and resistance to you. That's enough for you to know that you don't want to purchase there.

If you want it, wait them out. The by-laws specify how many days the board has to either waive or exercise its right of first refusal. They may try to restart the clock by asking for more info, so it could run into months.

What does the seller say?

NWT: It will run into months. Even if the rabbit family waits the Board out, they will not be treated well once they move in. The bad Condo Board writing is on the wall.

First: this is complete bullshit due to idoits who do not know the difference between a condo and a coop. There is no such thing as approval from a condo board. They have a right of first refusal and they usually have 30 days to exercise that right if they want. So just need to wait them out. (I once wrote a rant about this when I bought my condo, actually more about invasiveness since they can't do squat).

So you need to look at the condo by laws and see what is said about the right of first refusal. Mkae sure that you you have served the inofmraiton correctly. Then just have your lawyer write a nasty letter, and include fact that the board members can be held personally liable for being douches, including any fees needed to pursue this.

But don't sweat this. They really have no power. Condo is yours, just may need to send a few letters.

If you have it post the precise language from the by laws.

Thanks, ottawanyc. I don'thave the language from the by-laws. Will try to get it tomorrow. We understood they had thirty days.

They cannot deny, they have to issue a waiver or they have to purchase the place themselves in most condos. I would get the seller on board to push them and the attorneys. I am sure the seller is upset also but the condo documents will indicate that they have to issue the waiver or someone in the condo has to purchase it under the same terms. There should be specific language to that effect in the condos offering plan. This is definitely the attorneys domain and its absurd.

>First: this is complete bullshit due to idoits who do not know the difference between a condo and a coop.

You and NYCMatt can go and spend the next Thanksgiving with each other.

They can do whatever they want. Unless you have deep pockets or relish the idea of your name and family in the NY Post for all your friends and colleagues to see, then you should work within their bounds or just move on.

Oh, but they are douchebags. They can't do that.
So what, the train conductor on the local is a douchebag for not waiting for the passengers from the express train. So what? move on, new train coming, this is New York. Oh but I'm from Canada and we already had Thanksgiving. Good for you.

By-laws, schmy-laws:
the rabbit family will not be treated well by the Board.
There will be "noise complaints" from neighbors (those on the Condo Board and from the Board's besties.)
The Board will also make their life miserable via the managing agent and the Building staff.

Neither the "Condo Board" nor its members will reimburse your legal fees. If you take legal action and spend the time and money, you may "win" but at a very steep price.
"Ottawanyc" knows nothing about this. You can "thank" him now but he will not be there when months from now, you are a skinny rabbit.

Fats: BTW how are you communicating with the managing agent? Hopefully everything is in writing and clearly documented. You also need to be proactive if you don't want this to drag out. But again, don't worry. Just takes some time. Your financials are completely irrelevant. They could not accept you for whatever reason, but then their one and only recourse is to buy themsleves. Also they can't deny you because of your family situation and this concenr should be put in writing. Again, a simple letter from a lawyer would do the trick.

Everyone who hires a lawyer automatically wins.

^^Oh man, what an ignorant advisor^^.
See my comments above and then find another Condo to purchase that won't be problematic to you, once you are in the Building.

fieldschester: Your comment posted, while I was still typing mine.
I refer to the Ottawanyc comment above yours.
What could the rabbit family "win"? The right to purchase a Condo unit in a Building whose Board clearly doesn't want them living there.

"Again, a simple letter from a lawyer would do the trick."
Like it's magic, forever more.

With that mindset, we'd still have segregated lunch counters at Woolsworth.

I agree with the Canuck -- OP needs to assert his rights. Where are the borkers in this? What do they have to say about the situation?

Another nice avenue, given that this is not a coop but real property, is fair housing government agencies at all levels. Even at the shut-down Federal. Expect the brokerage to get behind you, or make it clear that you'll bring them down as well. Go to the media -- they'll have a field day with it.

And who gives a fat flying fuck how the condo treats you? Would you entertain such nonsense if you were trying to buy a house and the cross-burners insulted you? Only a truly crazy person would think of such a "problem".

By the way, what condo is this? Upson Downs?

I agree with alan. Go to the media. Everyone who goes to the media automatically ends up like Melanie Griffith in Working Girl.

fatrabbit:

1. there is appellate case law declaring coop boards in breach of lease for failing
to timely and fairly process a purchase application, such as the Second Appellate
Department's 25 Ludwig decision from years ago, which would also apply to condos

2. however, most condo rights of first refusal do not start to run until the condo
has received "a complete package"

3. dishonest condo boards can use that provision of their declarations or by-laws
to continually re-set the start date of their rights of first refusal by continu-
ally asking for more paperwork

4. while doing so would constitute bad faith and a breach of the condp's governing
documents, proving bad faith usually requires a trial, which for a lawsuit filed
in 2013 might not occur until after Earth's sun has gone cold and collapsed into
a black hole, which many lawsuits also become

exactly

Just got a copy of the by-laws from the title company guy who's a friend. They say they have 30 days to exercise right of first refusal and then sale goes It seems like the seller's the one who would have to write the nasty letter demanding that the board comply. Thoughts, anyone?

What does your borker say about all this?

Fats: true enough. As Alan asks though, what are your brokers doing about this? Likely not that uncommon. And don't listen to the idea that board members can simple keep requesting documents in perpetuity. The sheer notion that legal requirements (by-laws are essentially the operating contract between condo owners and the condo corp) can be evaded like this is simply ridiculous. The reason people use lawyers is because they can ensure that people follow the rules and not be jack asses. Your letter need not be nasty. Just lay out all the facts very clearly. This is kind of what I meant about being proactive. If you wanted to be nasty you could let them know that nothing in the by laws permits them to exceed their powers which then subjects them to personally liability. Again, this is not a big deal. Just exchange some letters and you'll be done with it.

So write a joint letter:

Dear Board,

On X we sent you a package containing x, y, z we sent you A, B,C in order to get our waiver pursuant to (cite bylaw).

On X date, managing agent said refused because of a, b,c. While we have not been specifically requested we have chosen to submit you with d, f, g, to demonstrate that our finacinal good standing.

Manging agent has also enquired into our family situation and expressed concern about kids. Please be reminded that according to fair housing....

We are really looking forward to moving in and look forward to receipt of the right of first rrefusal by XXX (30 days), as required by section X of the by laws. We trust that you will exercise your powers in good faith and look forward to moving in with our kids.

thanks...

As I said, the seller should be taking up this fight for sure. He is an owner of the condo and deserves to get this resolved.

"The lawyer doesn't think there's anything to be done. Does anyone disagree?"

You need to find a lawyer who understands New York City real estate.

A condo "board" has zero authority to keep you from buying a unit in the building, aside from its reserved right for first refusal.

Fire your lawyer. NOW.

Thanks Ottawanyc. The brokers have been in touch with the managing agent repeatedly. He just keeps repeating that we don't have enough income. It is a complete fabrication. Your letter is a great one. Will talk with our lawyer and the broker this am. Will ask the lawyer to get in touch with the seller's attorney. Btw, both lawyers have many years of experience but neither has ever encountered a situation like this in a condo.

Sounds like they will soon talk you into a lawsuit on your dime.

About 25 years ago a older couple was selling their 5 million dollar coop on 5th. They had a cash buyer and went thru the board process and were turned down. The seller and the buyer found its because they were Jews. They didn't really know what to do so a tax attorney said if you have the money sue everyone on grounds of discrimination.

Every board member and shareholder in that coop got served on a friday night meanwhile the seller went to florida for the week. Now shareholders wanted to know what the hell was going on and why they have to lawyer up now. Also some shareholders sued the board. Talk about a catfight !! Sellers get back and buyers get approved. It cost him about 60k to get this done.

A $5 million condo in 1988- nice.

cooperative, not condo

NYC requires a minimum of 80 sqft of livable floor space per person. The floor area of a kitchen or kitchenette shall be included in measuring the total liveable floor area of an apartment but the floor area for private halls, foyers, bathrooms or water closets shall be excluded. So, do you really have that many kids that the apartment is not large enough to satisfy the rule? The condo may have its own maximum occupancy rules. Such as no more than two people per bedroom. If you have more people than that, then you can buy the condo as an investment, but not moving in. Just my guess.

Obama does not respect large families.

This recent NYT article is very relevant here.

The building is either holding you up for the possibility you will go away (in which case you simply press your case as suggested above) or is stalling while someone else more favored in the building tries to line up financing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/realestate/hurdles-for-condo-buyers.html?_r=0

Mr. Bailey says he wields the right of refusal “as a weapon” to ward off potentially troublesome buyers. “If they don’t want to provide the tax returns and fill out the questionnaires and give the references,” he said, “then they’re not getting the waiver of right of first refusal. I need to protect the building before they enter it.”

Mr. Bailey says he has also started asking buyers to sign riders in which they agree to terms that may not be in the condo bylaws, like smoking or pet prohibitions.

He has no problem holding up a waiver if a buyer refuses to comply."

Good luck Fats. Maybe add to letter something to effect that "BTW managing agent seems to not understand difference between co-op approval process and a condo's right of first refusal. Suggest that you refer to your lawyer to understand... and are aware of potential liability."

Crsecent: yes excatly that type of jackass that it would be great to have sued. Who the hell does he think he is going beyond the by-laws and using the waiver as a weapon. What these gatekeepers don't understand is that they can be subjected to personal liability for this and also open up the condo to liability.

Here is a good article that shows that (a) notion of delay (b) personal liability does attach to puffed up jackass condo boards who think they have any say over who can buy property and (c) that the buyer can easily hold onto their unit even when the board members are being jackasses.

http://www.stroock.com/SiteFiles/Pub701.pdf

>Good luck Fats. Maybe add to letter something to effect that "BTW managing agent seems to not understand difference between co-op approval process and a condo's right of first refusal. Suggest that you refer to your lawyer to understand... and are aware of potential liability."

I agree with OttawaNYC, it's always good to insult the other person and to make threats that you won't and can't follow through with.

Ottawanyc, how many lawsuits have you initiated? What is your win rate? How many involved condos?

HB: I had to deal with my sponsor from my condo back home. He was a total bully, so submitted a claim in small claims court. He then got his lawyers involved. I ignored them. And then he settled giving me everything. So once and 100%. How about you?

Laws are to protect people from morons who think they are above the law. I find it offensive that some jackass can deny a family the right to purchase a place to live because he has a misplaced sense of power. I must say that it is only due to the prevalance of co-ops in NYC that managing agents and some condo boards think that this kind of bullshit happens.

Now piss off and go find some stupid articles to post or summon one of your personalities to write back and forth with.

Ooh, big tough Ottawanyc went to small claims court in another country.

My thoughts are the same as vic64. Just because this is a condo unit, you still need to meet the condo by-laws occupancy guidelines. How many kids are we talking about? What size unit?

Ottawa small claims court: "Small Claims Court is designed to handle small matters in the simplest manner possible. You do not need a lawyer to file a small claims action, but you may have a lawyer represent you if you wish. You may only file an action for money (not for the return of property or for any other remedy). The maximum claim is $3,000. You may not bring an action for libel, slander, malicious prosecution or abuse of process. You may not sue for exemplary or punitive damages. There are no jury trials. (See Ohio Revised Code Chapter 1925)"

$3,000 max. Money damages only.

Ottawa is the capital of Canada. It is in Ontario, not Ohio. Those are some solid research skills though. Very impressive. Please provide some more solid advice based on your vast life experience.

You just did a great job reinforcing how irrelevant Small Claims Court is in Ottawa to the OP, big boy.

My life experience - I'm not the one screaming "sue, sue, please spend your money and time to prove my sad point about how bullies shouldn't win."

1. the appellate court for Manhattan has allowed coop boards to require purchasers
to agree to use restrictions that don't apply to other shareholders, such as not
having their children live in the apt they want to buy, as a condition to being
approved as a buyer

2. I believe one such cash might have been Strauss v. ___ East 73rd Street _____

Yeah but rb345, that isn't a case from the Ottawa, Canada Small Claims Court.

RB: This is not a co-op. A condo board dervies its powers from the condo bylaws. They simply have zero power to impose any conditions. Again, I realize that most NYers are used to co-op rules, but this is a condo. Totally different ballgame, different rules. Co-ops have an enormous amount of latitude in such matters, condos don't.

>Totally different ballgame, different rules.

Like Ottawa, Canada Small Claims Court vs NYC Real World.

It's not unprecedented for a condo board to try to hold up release of waiver of RFR. I understand that's a stressful situation, but it sounds like you're jumping ahead a couple of steps. Your transaction has not been kiboshed; you are being d8cked around; those things may feel the same emotionally but they're different.

As buyer, your job now should be to keep your mortgage person apprised that this is going to take a while, and to make sure they keep renewing your commitment letter.

Simultaneously, your broker should be pressing seller's broker to get the 30-day clock started -- I agree with posters above that the management company may not consider your submission complete. If you have enough income to make the lender happy, you should have enough income to satisfy the requirements of the condo board. You just need to document it. This is your broker's job, he/she gets paid to do it, let him/her do it.

If it's a "number of kids" issue, if you're not violating housing codes, then you definitely have a Fair Housing complaint, and you can call 311. This is a federal violation but I would still start with the city to learn the next steps. NYC takes enforcement of this stuff very seriously.

Stay strong. Persist and you'll close.

ali r.
DG Neary Realty

oh 311 ought to really scare the condo henchmen

Fair Housing enforcement only applies to groups acceptable to Obama: http://youtu.be/L1JtIY0K_cY

as long as you submit the minimum, you should be able to start the clock. if they don't respond within 30 days, the seller and buyer proceed to closing. if they refuse to provide waiver, both buyer and seller proceed to sue. then the buyer starts a personal lawsuit against each individual board member and the condo as a whole.

you'll close and then you'll be able to settle with each board member for $X. they will be walking with their heads between their legs and will not get elected next year.

crescent: Oh yeah.
The Condo Board has been "d8cking" Mr.rabbit around.
Mr.& Mrs.rabbit will close on that Condo Unit, move in and their life there will be wonderful!
The "d8cking" they've received from the Condo Board thus far, will then become a full-fledged "d8cking" and the rabbit family will be trying to live in their Unit, under fire from the already pissed-off Condo Board.

Agree with Ali. Main point is that no one is getting sued at this point or likely will. Just laying out the facts and letting them know that there is repercussions if they fail to act. Your clock has started ticking already when you gave the info (as per Abs point).

Disagree though with Ali on requirements. There are no such thing as condo requirements. You can be massively in debt, have a prison record, play the trombone and enjoy making curry. And all they can do is buy the place. That is it.

Any case, I am sure this will work out fine.

Good luck!

Oh, there's ab with his informative DYI brand of advice.:
"Buyer and seller proceed to sue.then the buyer starts a personal lawsuit against each individual board member and the condo as a whole."

Mr.&Mrs.rabbit have "several kids". It's now mid-October, holiday season approaching.
The rabbit family will have so much extra time and money to follow ab's advice.

ab also assumes that the entire Board "will not get elected next year."

Yeah,:"this will work out fine."
It already sounds so near to "fine", that "fine" will be the future for the rabbit family, living in that Condo.

Good luck, rabbit family.

condos, thanks to their money-grubbing managing agents, are starting to think the are coops, and have some right over who can rent of buy a unit.

wow, I can't type...

Thanks, Ottawanyc, Ali R., and others. We certainly meet both housing code and condo rules re: number of occupants. No problem there on our side. Also, we have submitted everything the board package required and then more. The mortgage company is aware of the situation and is on board. Problem is with the managing agent who has been very nasty to the broker, the mortgage broker, etc. and has put his objections about the income into multiple e-mails to them. Our lawyer was going to speak to the seller's attorney today to bring pressure along the lines of the letter Ottawanyc suggested and others here kindly embellished. We purposely went for a condo and not a coop because we were worried that a board might turn down a large family but a condo could not as long as we were bona fide purchasers which clearly we are. Would someone please advise us about when the 30 day period began? We submitted the whole package except for the letters of recommendation and then provided the letters a few days later. The package, therefore, was technically complete on the day we submitted the letters. Does the 30 days run from that day? Thanks, again, to all in advance.

Love how the OP never tells us how many kids or relative income to the purchase price. But he does listen to Ottawa.

If not explicitly defined in the by-laws, you define the 30-day period and communicate it to them to start the clock and dare them to use the leverage they are implicitly threatening.

>you define the

Who is 'you'?

You = "the letter sent to "The Board" (first, ottawanyc advised that "your lawyer send a nasty letter".
Then he backtracked to: "Your letter need not be nasty").

When the rabbit family move-in to that Condo unit, the Board will welcome them with a red-carpet in the lobby.
The red-carpet services will be supplied by the management company. It will be a one-of-a kind love affair.

What building is this?

I was on a condo board and we were quite unhappy that the sponsor sold one of his apartments to a very large family that paid cash, all in money orders. There is no right of first refusal on a sponsor apartment, so we were stuck. However, we properly modified the bylaws and house rules to address the issues they were creating. This mainly included billing them for building damages and violations of house rules/bylaws with escalating fees for non-payment of fines and lien procedures.

The only alternative we had to prevent this happening again on re-sales was to make the application procedure cumbersome, often asking for clarification of finances and references. People who actually DID have something to hide generally withdrew their offer. Those who didn't had to be approved within the 30 day window since we didn't have the cash to buy an apartment (hard for a condo to get a loan for this quickly). At least with undesirable renters, we could come up with the rent money.

If our suspicions were correct, we had our fine system as back up. We didn't go out of our way to find fault with these people, but we made sure they understood the buildings regulations. Any complaints were dealt with swiftly. Problem owners were shocked that they could not get away with ignoring fines for violations because we put liens against their property. All this was upheld in court.

What you have to ask yourself is whether this managing agent is speaking for the board and whether it is worthwhile to force the issue. I don't know of any condo that has changed their regulations to include income requirements; generally mortgage approval by the bank is sufficient, especially with the paranoia of the banks these days.

Look at it from the board's perspective. You may be perfectly reasonable, great neighbors, but these are the problems we had: Noise, noise, noise complaints from neighbors 2 floors up and down and on the same floor; torn carpets and wall paper in the hallway; water damages from the misuse of the bath tub, dishwasher, and washing machine; use of the public hallways as a playground; damages to plants in the garden; damages to the health club and children's playroom; dogs soiling the carpets and public terraces; blocked compactor chutes; non-payment of maintenance and assessments. This was mainly caused by the one large family that bought the sponsor apartment. We were so happy when they finally sold their apartment, a long process because the place was a wreck.

fieldchester, what does it matter how many kids and income vs. price. This is a condo. If he/she/it can qualify for a mortgage or pay cash, that is that.

If the condo doesnt like him for some reason, they can exercise their rofr.

managing agents are way out of line putting processes in to make money while at the same time illegally trying to expand a condo's "power" into that of a coop. they already cost landlords at least a month's rent and $$$ (even if the prospective tenant pays) for a ridiculous and invasive application process in some cases that has no grounds in anything.

I would like to see a condo try to block my sale based on anything.

jelj, sponsor and sponsor unit - you have to live with that.

you should not make the process of renting and selling more cumbersome for your owners, and I cannot wait to see this challenged in a court someday.

challenged in a real court or in a Canadian Small Claims Court?

Ottawa:

1. for purposes of imposing use restrictions on buyers there is no substantive
difference between a Coop and a Condo

2. in each instance the HOA is waiving a right

3. in the case of a Condo, a right of first refusal

4. in the case of a Coop, the unconditional right to reject

5. the Coop cases have involved Business Corporations Law section 501(C)

6. that statute provides that all shareholders that are members of the same
class of stock must have identical rights and be subject to identical
disabilities: see e.g., McCabe v. Hoffman 526 NYS2d ___ (1st Dep't.),
which has been followed by that court in recent decisions

7. however, NY law also allows people who are the beneficiaries of statutes
enacted for their protection to waive the benefits of such statutes as
long as such waivers do not violate public policy or involved malum in
se acts, acts which are inherently unlawful, such as child sexual misuse

8. so altho the issue has not yet been adjudicated, the Coop cases, if cited
to a court, would likely be applied to Condos as well

9. so where does all that leave the rabbits

10. the start of the 30 day rule must be clearly defined in the Condo's
controlling legal documents

11. those documents must be strictly construed vs. the condo in accord-
ance with the contra proferentum rule of contract law

12. that rule was recently applied to Condos in Lesal v. Board of Managers
of Columbia Court Condominium by the First Department, the appeals
court for Manhattan

13. the rabbits best prospects would seem to be to find a hole in their
Condo's controlling legal documents re what events start its 30-day
ROFR cycle and what events cause that 30-day period to restart and
use the contra proferentum rule vs. the Condo, since that rule pro-
vides that all ambiguities and inconsistencies in such documents must
be interpreted vs. the Condos and in favor of their unit owners

14. however, the rabbits might have a standing problem in suing the
Condo unless their seller joins in with them because of the fact that
they are not parties to the Condo's controlling legal documents
unless they can convince a court that they are intended third party
beneficiaries of the ROFR parts of the Condo's documents

15. and unless the rabbits were paying significantly more than the market, it is unclear why the seller would bother

16. the Lesal case against the C0lumbia C0urt C0ndominium was one of my favorites.

I realize that it doesn't seem "fair" to try to impose coop type regulations in a condo. However, some people who buy condos feel that, since they own their apartment and have a deed, it means they don't have to consider their impact on their neighbors. What's worse is when they buy the place to use as a rental property and are absentee owners when it comes to dealing with issues with their tenants. I can't tell you how many times we had to deal with owners/renters of owners who refused to comply with building regulations because they "paid big bucks for this place". They had no understanding of the difference between living in an apartment and a private home.

The damages caused by the owner I mentioned came to thousands of dollars each year. Add to that their non-payment of maintenance and this was a huge impact on the other 106 apartments in the building. Someone has to pay for the repairs and the essential building services. So that means the other 106 apartments had to cover the shortfall.

Maybe fatrabbit is trying to buy into a building that is geared towards smaller apartments. Sometimes they assume then that people in the very large apartments will convert the extra bedrooms to guest rooms and home offices.

jelj13 - it sounds like you should be living in a coop. But dont try to turn a condo into a coop.

there are house rules in a condo and fines for not following them. that has nothing to do with the ability to sell/rent a unit.

why do you call what the owner is not paying "maintenance"... it really sounds like you want to live in a coop.

respect the ownership structure you bought into. if you dont like it, get a coop or a house.

and when you say "fair"... I was thinking more like "legal"

Jelj, it sounds like your building had one terrible experience and went through a learning curve about how to properly enforce your bylaws. I don't think though that a solution is to ban all families. Not sure where NY fmailies are supposed to live if they systematically get squeezed out of co-ops and condos. Sounds like you might prefer the quiet of a retirement home.

Don't mind Ottawanyc. He's too ashamed to live in his home country.

Are the rabbits still stewing?

mmm rabbit

gcondo: Maintenance is your monthly fee whether you live in a condo or a cooperative. That pays for the doorman, porters, supers, building maintenance, water bills, etc. If you don't pay your fair share, the service people and city agencies STILL HAVE TO BE PAID. That means the maintenance goes up for everyone to cover your shortfall.

As for family size, personally I don't care providing you follow the city guidelines for occupancy and are respectful to your neighbors.

I lived in a condo where some idiot installed a stereo system in a spare bedroom closet and piped the music throughout the apartment by jacking up the music to the max to make sure they could hear it even in the shower. When the neighbor downstairs dared to speak to them because they had a new born infant disturbed at all hours of the day and night by the music, they told her "we paid big bucks for this place" and can do as we please. Hmm, the neighbor downstairs didn't get their apartment from the tooth fairy.

I lived in a coop where another idiot ran a custom carpentry business when she came home from her job as a waitress at 1 AM in the morning. When the people trying to sleep in the bedroom below her "carpentry workshop" complained, they added music all night.

I lived in another condo where some renters decided to celebrate the end of the Sabbath every weekend by inviting up to 200 guests to a 1,100 square foot apartment. Company overflowed to the public hallways, back stair cases, and lobby until 2 AM. Apparently the owner never did a proper background check to find out their tenants had their leases cancelled on their last 2 places due to noise complaints.

All these places had buy in prices for 2 bedroom apartments well over 1 million in a posh section of the West Side.

Ottawanyc: The mantra for those who don't hold responsible jobs that require a good night's sleep seems to be "you must be old, go to a retirement home". Seems to me that good manners and neighborliness used to be thought of as never going out of fashion.

In a condo, we call them "common charges", a separate charge from property taxes, which the OWNER of the unit pays directly to the govt.

"maintenance" in a coop includes operating expenses and taxes the coop pays instead as the OWNER of the building. You own shares in the coop corp and a lease to your unit. You don't own any real property.

You seem to think that a condo is the same as a coop on many levels. You belong in a coop, based on what you are afraid of and what you want to protect.

jelj:

1. the problems you described can be dealt with in House Rules
2. Coops and Condos are equally capable of passing such rules

3. so what happened to the rabbits

gcondo is trying to argue the point of monthly charges due: "Co-op Maintenance" vs. "Condo common charges."
jelj is attempting to give examples of his/her experience living in a co-op and also a condo.

Both Co-ops and Condos have "House Rules". How they are "dealt with" (co-op or condo), makes no difference.
Either can "deal with" or decide to "not deal with".

Maybe The rabbits went back into the rabbit hole and decided to pass on that unit and find another Building in which to purchase a unit. Happy rabbits are the best rabbits.

As the saying goes, "One swan doesn't make a summer." Just because one large family in the building described by Jelj behaved in a disgraceful manner doesn't mean that lack of civility and utter disregard for others is the exclusive province of big families. We lived in a condo some years ago where a single, older woman had a dog so unruly that it used to knock people down in the lobby. We also had a situation where an owner with two grown children illegally, and incorrectly from a plumbing point of view, installed a bedroom and hot tub on the roof - he had a penthouse apartment - and then proceeded to flood apartments on the two floors below his. My point: there are plenty of boorish and inconsiderate people. The size of their families is not dispositive and, in this case, the board is trying to do something illegal under the guise of having a spurious financial objection.

truth, how can jelj argue intelligently about the differences between condos and coops when he/she doesnt even understand the difference in fee structure/nomenclature?

"Stereotype" & "Discrimination"

A stereotype is a thought that may be adopted about specific types of individuals or certain ways of doing things, but that belief may or may not accurately reflect reality. However, this is only a fundamental psychological definition of a stereotype. Within and across different psychology disciplines, there are different concepts and theories of stereotyping that provide their own expanded definition. Some of these definitions share commonalities, though each one may also harbor unique aspects that may complement or contradict the others.

Discrimination is the prejudicial and/or distinguishing treatment of an individual based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or category, "in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated." It involves the group's initial reaction or interaction, influencing the individual's actual behavior towards the group or the group leader, restricting members of one group from opportunities or privileges that are available to another group, leading to the exclusion of the individual or entities based on logical or irrational decision making

fatrabbit, I again counsel you to get the clock started and then to pursue your Fair Housing rights. Here's a HUD website that might be helpful, although as I mentioned above, in practice I'd start with the city.

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/FHLaws/yourrights

It might work out that the seller doesn't really care if the waiver of RFR is granted (because he/she will be able to exit at his/her price whether the buyer is the building, or it's you) but the government cares deeply.

ali r.

>gcondo
about 7 hours ago
Posts: 1100
Member since: Feb 2009
ignore this person
report abuse
truth, how can jelj argue intelligently about the differences between condos and coops when he/she doesnt even understand the difference in fee structure/nomenclature?

Yeah, well maybe, but it isn't as bad as bjw2103 who didn't know the difference between principal and interest.

>but the government cares deeply.

Remember, families with lots of kids aren't on Obama's list. See the video link above.

gcondo: Maybe the "Fee structure/nomenclature" was misunderstood.
Maybe bjw is off the se boards because he needs time for trying to make his financial statements add up.

Mr.rabbit: Just go ahead, start the clock. Fight the Board to get in, hope to enjoy your life in that condo Building.
You're late, you're late -- for a very important date!

are you trying to get into this guy's building? http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/32083-no-kids-in-the-building

"Maybe bjw is off the se boards because he needs time for trying to make his financial statements add up."

... If only he could be a financial GENIUS like trUth.

I agree with bjw's financial genius that Apple has underperformed since it was recommended by w67thstreet.

^^The alkie troll is trolling me on three different threads now. Rushing from one to another, spilling his drink as he trolls. It's only 6:25pm and he's looking forward to another exciting night of drunken trolling.

I think you're projecting. Much.

Our transactional attorney is wishy washy on this and says only the seller (who doesn't want to do anything) is the only one who has standing to compel the condo board to act. That answer is unsatisfactory for us and so we would like a lawyer who specializes in condo and coop law to help us. Any suggestions? Thanks.

Your lawyer is correct about standing. The waiver is given to the seller, not the buyer. If the seller doesn't push, then you're stuck.

New York's full of lawyers, though, so shouldn't be tough to find one who'll tell you the shit you want to hear.

Spoke to one attorney yesterday who said if seller tries to return the deposit to us we can file a lis pendens. That might get the seller interested in going forward.

NWT will be waiting to see and report to us so we know which building / apartment this is all about.

Fats, yes that is right. You shuld also raise the fair housing issue. Again, really hope this is all playing out on paper. If you read the article I posted above it includes the following, which is what the 2nd attorney you talked to referred to:

Further, although a purchaser cannot assert a breach of contract or breach of fiduciary duty claim against the board,17 a purchaser could sue the seller for specific performance and file a lis pendens, effectively preventing the seller from transferring the unit to a different purchaser until the initial purchaser’s claim is resolved, thereby inevitably embroiling the board in third-party litigation.

Can't wait to read about it in the Post.

What happened in the end ?