Leasing a condo

More important question, did you sign that lease yet?

aifamm: Not signed yet. Just came to me in an email.

You really shouldn't sign that. Also, go through the rest with a fine-toothed comb given they tried that crap. I'd heard of that clause (though never actually seen it tried), so probably not the first time ever. If you want to be a smart-ass, say the clauses are fine, but only if a clause is added stating that if the appraised value of the apt goes up, the difference will be deducted from the rent. After all if you're bearing the financial risk of ownership, you should get some benefits too. On the other hand, you sound like you want the place, so maybe ask them
politely to strike the clauses as you will not sign otherwise. In short, not customary.

This is standard in many condo leases. Cross them out. Most landlords do not require these sections but if you do not object they will be glad you left them in. Also cross out the section that says Sale of Unit. You should have the protection of being to stay in the apartment during the length of the lease.

Agree that they are just trying to pull a fast one on you and that you should re-read it carefully.

It is irrelevant if it's customary or not. A years or two ago, a mortgage contingency was "customarily" waived in manhattan new construction purchases. You would be insane (or cash rich) to sign a contract for new construction without one now.

I wouldn't sign a lease with these provisions, but I disagree that they're trying to pull a fast one on you. It's in the standard Blumberg form lease, which in my view contains many, many objectionable provisions (the REBNY form lease, on the other hand, is far more reasonable). That said, most owners are not going to be interested in negotiating provisions other than the two mentioned here (sale of the apartment and rent rising with coon charges), and in many cases the building will insist on other provisions you may want changed.

Do not sign that. Might have been standard but that clause is so much more dangerous now. If it's a building with financial troubles (i.e, does not sell out, many units not current on bills) each owner will have to fork up more in common charges to keep the place running.

That is probably the most dangerous sounding clause going into the next 12-24 months. It could really hurt you financially as its very plausible to think that owners will be forced to pay assessments.

Thank you all for the advice and support. It is the Blumberg Lease form. We also object to the clause that forces us vacate with 30 days notice if the condo is sold, especially since the landlord insists on a two year lease and two months security.

There is no provision in the lease for repair/replacement of the appliances (circa 1985) to be the landlord's responsibility. I asked the agent if this could be covered in a rider to the lease (n0 response yet) but I know savvy contributors here will have advice on this, too. TIA

Most Condo owners (hell. most brokers) don't even realize those 2 clauses exist in the standard Blumberg Condo Lease.

cliff702, as long as your really like the place, and as I said before, cross out both of those sections on all copies of the lease, and if the landlord won't accept it, take a walk. 30yrs, you are correct that owners and many brokers don't know about those clauses. Well to top that, there are lawyers who don't know or look because they figure it is a standard lease.

Writing as a former condo board president in a very nice, established Manhattan condo -- to my relatively long experience in reviewing many condo leases, it is UNUSUAL to have these clauses included in leases. Most of the many that I reviewed in right-of-first-refusal submissions had these clauses crossed off and I agree with those here who suggest that you omit them from your lease. And as for repair of appliances, it is, again to my experience, almost always the landlord's responsibility to repair/replace appliances.

I would not sign it. You are going to be stuck with any increases in taxes/maint. which are likely to climb. Go directly to a management company.

A good broker should show up to the lease signing with these two provisions crossed out in the form of lease and a prior explanation to the owner that they aren't market.

But the best thing that a prospective tenant should do is be explicit when making the offer that he'll sign a REBNY lease (vs a Blumberg) and that those two provisions be excluded.

Also, good to negotiate an option for a second year at a fixed price so there are no surprises. Do not just sign a 1 year lease without an option that'll give the landlord/owner the upper hand in 10 months.

Also, the notion of 2 months deposit is absurd. No management company would ever ask that of a normal tenant. Go get your credit reports and FICO score and offer those upfront. When the owner asks for 2 months after knowing you are a good credit, walk. That tune will change quickly because of the risk they'll be looking for a new tenant without good credit who will also not have any interest in 2 months.

Thanks again for all of your comments which I've used in negotiating the lease terms. Agent instructs us to cross out the two objectionable sections. Agent comment on appliances: "The appliances are the landlord's responsibility and don't need to be reiterated."

I think the ideal is that the documents should prevent the "gotcha" syndrome (for both landlord and tenant) down the line. All the extraneous "stuff" dilutes the value of the agreement.

"the notion of 2 months deposit is absurd. No management company would ever ask that of a normal tenant."

So people with dogs, out of state guarantors, had a "bad year" last year, have a lot of equity but not much income, don't quite meet the income ratio, have a history of not paying their last month rent, have below 700 (or 650, or..) credit score, don't have US citizenship, have been taken to court by a prior landlord EVER, are roommates and neither one could carry the unit on their own, etc, are all "abnormal", or landlords just shouldn't rent to them period?

I had always owned my home, plus an investment rental or two. Rose Associates, Inc, two years ago, was our first real rental experience.(We'd been taking furnished sublets through Craigslist to get the feel of NYC.) Rose Associates insisted on two months security and made the process of renting more stressful than any of the dozen or so house/condo purchases and sales I'd ever done.

When our new prospective landlord asked for two months security, it didn't faze me much.

I helped a friend moving into NYC with finding an apartment a few months ago, and helped him deal with getting the lease paperwork done in a Rose Associates. Believe me, in this market they're pussycats now. ;)

It is NOT a standard term in leases; it is a common ASK from many lessors. But I know of no intelligent person who signed a lease with these terms; nearly everyone strikest them out. The buyer has the risks and rewards of ownership - he profits from gains in prices, and suffers from price declines, tax hikes, etc. If the owner is seeking to pass on risks to you - taxes, condo fee hikes, etc, will he also pass on gains to you? Of course not. It entirely asymetrical. I think it is slimy. I knew someone who said to a condo owner seeking to pull this crap, "Do you understand how renting works??". Anyone asking for this BS lease term deserves a similar response. If would like you taking out a life insurance policy where you pay them, you pay them more under certain circumstances, and they pay you nothing if you do. It's STOOPID!

last sentence should read "It would be like you taking out a life insurance policy where you pay them, you pay them more under certain circumstances, and they pay you nothing if you die".

I'm not sure why folks here had a hard time with Rose associates. They are a friendly LL, and the paperwork was not nearly as cumbersome as other big LL (Glenwood and Solow were the others I strongly considered). Everything they asked for was fairly typical (ie proof of income/employment, fill out 2 pg application, etc). The leasing agent I worked with at Glenwood was really great though.