Perils of a small condo

Oops, 1A.

An update: The condo and the bank are still waiting for their money, as their cases against the deadbeat wend slowly through the foreclosure process. Ms. Hazan tried to say she didn't receive proper notice ("Duh, I didn't know I had to pay my CCs and mortgage") but the judges rightly rejected that tactic.

The bank's case still dragging on. The latest: http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/fcas/fcas_docs/2010MAY/3001049902008005SCIV.pdf

The condo's just filed another Lien of Common Charges, this time against Ms. Hazan and the two subsequent owners. (Those two sales were for no consideration; don't know what they're about.)

The total arrears were $182,000+ as of May 28th.

Joan should send her ghost to that arrears apartment.

Not the ghost of Joan, the ghost that haunts her apartment in that building.

Here's another one, from today's paper: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/nyregion/for-jennifer-sultan-a-dot-com-bust.html?smid=pl-share

As of last week, the fun couple owed their condo $270,000+ in CCs, late fees, interest, and legal fees. That's a pinch for the other seven owners.

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/680945-condo-5-east-17th-street-flatiron-new-york

Interesting read. Thanks, NWT.

>Interesting read. Thanks, NWT.

Interesting comment. Thanks, inododo.

deadbeats suck, esp in small buildings--but hey, with RE prices doubling every 4 years, who cares?

Back to deadbeat in 1A at http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/building/1-east-62-street-manhattan.

The condo's sued to foreclose on the $182,000-and-mounting arrears. Their last attempt, in 2008, was thrown out because she was renting it out and the condo couldn't find her to serve the papers.

This time she's trying the same tactic, using a guy who seems to be Greenpoint's favorite divorce lawyer, but the condo looks to have covered its butt better.

The condo's complaint says her sales to related parties were gifts, so all three are defendants.

What's weird is that the condo couldn't prevent her from recording those deeds or from living there.

NWT: Why doesn't the condo at 5 east 17th sue to foreclose? That is a hefty amount for the other condo owners to carry. One of the reasons I would never live in a building with under 20 units.

They're in bankruptcy court, so the condo is just another creditor and can't foreclose.

In August the court ordered them to vacate the place and turn over the keys, etc. I suppose that's one of the first steps towards a sale. The condo's lien comes second, after the mortgage lender, so it may end up with nothing.

Am I correct in thinking that if this had been a co-op that the positions would be reversed, i.e. co-op first, lender second?

Which is better for a fraudster like you?

That is correct- if this had been a co-op the positions would be reversed, i.e. co-op first, lender second. It is situations like this that blur the lines as to which is better- a co-op or a condo.

That's what cc's pal w67 calls the "co-op forcefield."

I thought only ppl in Florida and the Midwest could not pay their bills. I thought all us nycers were rich, with a home in the hamptons. 4 vacas to Europe a year and a coupla of feed the hungry kids. Sometimes when we got bored we raised money for Obamas? Wtf

Indeed Wtf.

Here's another one: http://streeteasy.com/nyc/building/metal-shutter-houses

The couple who own the gallery and unit #1 (or rather their LLC), known for having trouble paying their artists, owe the condo $120,000-and-mounting in CCs, Con Ed, assessments, etc. They have almost 22% of the PCI.

That's not going to kill the other few owners in a condo like this, but it must be annoying to have to make forced loans to support the lifestyle of freeloaders.

Tourist - I think you misunderstood me. What I am saying is people buying in coops usually are not like you who can move from Europe to US and back and forth. They need a primary residence to live in all year long. They don't have all that extra money to go out and rent the apartment out unless they plan to rent another apartment for themselves. I think many people have to first sell their apartment to get their equity out to put down the down payment for the second apartment. They don't have the luxury of keeping their down payment in the apartment and then put another 20% down for a second apartment and rent the first apartment. So, if this the case, the rental point is not important to them as it is for you. You have the extra money. Many people don't.

Back to Joan's condo, the arrears on #1A now amount to more than $250,000. The condo's still trying to force a sale.

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=2DqOHb84gzZeKnOrFdhYZA==&system=prod

NWT:

1. this case sounds like HOA attorneys havent exdcuted properly

2. doesnt RPAPL section 735 allow posting at the apt to be recovered and mailing to last known address
3. also, what about CPLR 308(e) service by publication
4. sounds like 2008 dismissal could have been avoided

5. likewise, the automatic stay of Bankruptcy Code section 362(a) now automartically lifts 30 days
after bankruptcy is filed if the debtor doesnt pay pre-petition HOA dues

5. and bankruptcy court can order sale of the apt under Code section 363(a)
6. since the automatic stay was lifted by that court,, why didnt HOA proceed with a 363(a) sale

7. but you have to tip your hat to the attorney for the apt owner
8. magnificent job