board rejects buyer due to low price

Dwell, didn't the OP indicate that the seller won or settled with the board and that the sale was about to go through?

oops...an unfortunate fact that seems to contradict the OP. oh well.

If boards were going to try that, wouldn't they have begun before now? They probably realize that being a "difficult" board is worse for their own values than letting sales go through at market. I'm sure there're exceptions, but the hundreds of co-op sales per month say boards accept the market.

Then there's the board at 808 Broadway, complained about in today's paper by the seller of http://streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/74135-coop-808-broadway-greenwich-village-new-york. Going by the dates of the three turndowns, though, it looks as if prices weren't the problem.

Welcome back, cc.

I know of at least one coop in Harlem where the board blocked the sale this past fall. It was an estate sale which made it all the worst since the person running the estate lived out of the city, and had trouble paying the maintenance. Ultimately though, I think they were able to sell at a higher price to another buyer.

I don't necessarily think that this would lead to coop boards getting a bad rep and affecting sales. Maybe in some of the larger buildings out there that are widely discussed on websites, but not in a partially affordable building in Harlem that does not even have a catchy name.

Urbandigs has mentioned a few times who condos will have a quicker downturn in prices because of this effect, and hence they will reflect market value more accurately. Could not agree with this more.

There's still no evidence that the board initially rejected the buyer due to price. That's what the OP of the other thread states, but then doesn't provide any evidence of that actually being the reason. Boards rejecting buyers due to price are almost always rumor and specualtion (much of it here on SE). No one has been able to actually provide even 1 example of this occurring during this downturn.

Posting a thread "Board Rejects Buyer Due to Low Price" without actually providing proof of this occuring is yet another way this rumor goes round and round.

CC, is it really you?

I am hypothesizing what I see as a potential trend. I did not include the exact fact pattern of the OP on the other post re: lawsuit. I am hypothesizing, so "rumor" is irrelevant.

I'll re-phrase it: Bd looks at 2 potential sales: one @ 2003/4 price, the other @ 2005 price. Bd has a lot of discretion & could always find something undesirable about a buyer. Since a sale will be a future comparable for the values of Bd members' apts, Bd will most likely favor buyer with the higher sale.

I see a potential trend where some Bds will scrutinize much more harshly buyers buying @ 2003/4 prices (or lower) because Bd members want to prevent the devaluation of their own apts. This may force buyers to bid above value in order to be approved. Additionally, if some Bds engage in this, there may be less sales & less units coming on the market (because sellers may feel that it may be futile to try to sell since the Bd may be disinclined to approve the buyer due to low price & don't want the hassle of a lawsuit).

Again, this is not fact, but rather a hypothesis of a potential trend.

Your hypothesizing something that is not happening at all (no evidence of it) and suggesting that it could be a trend....okay. Perhaps something should happen first, and then happen repeatedly over a specific time frame before someone starts a post calling this a trend.

I heard that someone stole an NYU student's kidneys after drugging their drink at a bar so they can be sold on the black market. This is a trend that is happening in NYC. This ridiculous statement is only a fraction more outrageous than what you have hypothesized as a trend. Neither have been proved to have occurred, yet both seem like they *could* occur. Trends? Not so much.

"Your hypothesizing something that is not happening at all (no evidence of it) and suggesting that it could be a trend....okay. Perhaps something should happen first, and then happen repeatedly over a specific time frame before someone starts a post calling this a trend."

Geezus, Waverly, it did happen: Bd rejected the guy for low price: http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/18846-rejected-by-board-seller-sues-now-what:
"A few months ago I went into contract on an apartment, the board rejected my application before they even met with me. The seller was convinced the board rejected the sale due to price (it was at 2003-04 levels) so the seller sued the board. I stayed in contract during this time. The seller and board apparently will be settling this week, and that could mean I can actually move forward with the sale." Perhaps you disagree with that poster's statement because he did not present "factual proof" that the seller was correct in his assumption that "the board rejected the sale due to price (it was at 2003-04 levels)"

You obviously did not go to law school: One takes a fact pattern, changes some of the facts in that fact pattern & creates a hypothetical.

It's fine if you disagree with my hypo & the potential trend that I foresee, but, what I said is certainly not ridiculous.

I feel like your CYAing because you own an apt & fear a future sale could diminish the value of your apt. You protest too much

Nowhere does this state that the buyer was turned down because of the sales price being too low. The poster is making an asusmption. The seller sued the board (again, just going by a poster on an anonymous board is not a great source) and the poster is convinced that the outcome was that they are going to now accept a lower price. What if they turned down the buyer because his finances weren't acceptable? The seller tells the buyer he is suing the board, when he is negotiating with them for some flexibility in this transaction so that it goes through. The prices isn't the issue. The buyer thinks it is...posts on SE...rumor spreads (and another kidney gets taken). I don;t need a law degree (although my wife has hers) to see that this is proof of nothing.

Why care? Because without proof it is just noise.

So, as I previously stated, this is what you disagree with:
<"Perhaps you disagree with that poster's statement because he did not present "factual proof" that the seller was correct in his assumption that "the board rejected the sale due to price (it was at 2003-04 levels)">

Fine, why not just state that instead of talking about kidneys at NYU?

Once again, I am discussing a hypothetical, but, never mind because obviously, the concept is too abstract for you.

Is a board really going to go on record as squashing a deal because the price was too low?

I think that it would be very risky to do something like that for the board. Although my understanding is that that is entirely within their means to cancel the deal because of a low price.

Agree mmarquez that it's unlikely that a Bd would admit quashing the sale due to low price. A Bd has great discretion & does not have to state their reasons for rejecting a buyer. I believe a Bd can reject a sale for almost any reason except racial discrim.

This is too big of an issue for a board to keep quiet. Someone, somewhere would rat them out. Think of all of the transactions that occur in coops...what is it now...maybe 500 coop sales/month. If it even happened 1% of the time, that would be 60 deals a year. No one could keep it quiet. In this city? Soembody would find out.

There are plenty of sleazy things realtors do and some boards do, but there just doesn't seem to be enough evidence of this happening. And if it does occur, it is more than likely the extreme outlier and not a trend.