(I had this listed under "anything" instead of "sales" so am reposting here for visibility). In my next series of question, I want bring to your attention that I became aware of a huge lawsuit against my building along with about 8 foreclosures that is making it extremely difficult for people to get a mortgage here unless they are a cash buyer. In addtion as an owner, i knew a little about the... [more]
(I had this listed under "anything" instead of "sales" so am reposting here for visibility).
In my next series of question, I want bring to your attention that I became aware of a huge lawsuit against my building along with about 8 foreclosures that is making it extremely difficult for people to get a mortgage here unless they are a cash buyer. In addtion as an owner, i knew a little about the lawsuit, but not alot. It became more important to me when I went to a board meeting and found out (along with the paperwork), that it is a 23 million dollar lawsuit that is going to court in May. Should we lose, each apartment (it's a condo), will average a $ 40,000.00 assessment per apartment! Well, my broker knew only what I knew (which I found a bit shocking since this has been going on for a few years). Isn't it the brokers responsibility to know about the financial health in a building if they are trying to sell an apartment in it? It seems logical to me. He knew practically zilch outside of what I told him verbally and by xerox pages from the financial reports deep into a deal his was trying to work out.
Well, as a result of the activity above, I had an accepted bid in my same building for a larger apt. and was hoping to go to contract with a buyer for my place, ( a difficult maneuver as most of you know), and the day prior to the contracts going out for signature, my buyer through her broker reduced her bid to me by $ 25,000.00 due to the due diligence her attorney did on my building concerning the lawsuit. I wasn't prepared for that especially knowing I was plannning to buy in the same building, and if I took the loss on my apt, come May I may have to come up with another $ 30- $ 35,000 on the place I was about to buy.......what a mess!
So my bottom line is how much should a broker know about the building in which they are selling, the financials, the number of owners vs. renters, the ability to get storage unit, even the locations of the washer dryers! It would seem to me that if you are about to sell something several times more than a new car, it is incumbent that you know as much as possible, or perhaps use a broker that sells many units in your building.
Your comments please. (sorry for the lenghthy descrip. I just want all the facts to be clear).
[less]
Response by gcondo
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 1111
Member since: Feb 2009
hmm lets see, broker knew nothing, lawyer found it... sounds about right.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by damier212
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 124
Member since: Aug 2009
yes, gcondo you are correct................but shouldn't the broker know this information if they are selling the apartment to begin with or am I being unrealistic considering they make thousands of dollars in commission on the deal?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by ph41
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 3390
Member since: Feb 2008
damier - isn't it a little unreasonable to expect your broker to know more than you, the owner of the apartment, about your building's finances/problems? YOU had access to board minutes, revealing the details of the problem; your broker normally does not until a contract is out and the buyer's lawyer requests board minutes (due diligence)
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by matsonjones
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 1183
Member since: Feb 2007
I am really sorry to say this, but it is not the broker's responsibility. It is yours as the buyer. This is why a top notch real estate attorney and excellent building inspector who will due thorough due diligence working solely your behalf as the buyer are such crucial parts of the equation for any potential purchaser. I mean no disrespect to any brokers out there, but the most important part of my 'team' when buying property are my lawyer and my building inspector. When selling, it is my lawyer and then the broker (if not FSBO, of course).
If, however, the broker hid or purposely misrepresented information, that would be another matter entirely, and one might possibly have a legal case on those grounds.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by gaongaon
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 282
Member since: Feb 2009
Damier, your story sounds very legitimate since you were planning to buy a larger place in your building. Where was your lawyer through all of this? You had an accepted offer on the larger apt.? I'm referring to the lawyer who was to handle your purchase of the other apt.? Did this whole lawsuit thing start to snowball rapidly? How could your lawyer not have warned you?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by matsonjones
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 1183
Member since: Feb 2007
I find it odd that if you used the same lawyer for both transaction, NEITHER time, in either transaction, in the same building, did the lawyer uncover such an epic situation.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by damier212
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 124
Member since: Aug 2009
ph41- Yes you are probably right that it may be unreasonable to expect my broker to know more than me about my buildings finances and/or problems, but to know nothing? If questioned by the buyers broker or client, I think he should know what hes talking about before selling a high priced apartment and if asked anything about the financials of the building, should be able to talk about them. I don't think that is too much to ask for. Many people in my building (it is a huge bldg.), didn't know about the pending lawsuit or how serious it is. I started taking interest when I was finding out that banks were turning mortgages down in my bldg and I wanted to know why. I don't read all of the building minutes after living there 15 years, now it seems like it's what I must do, as I am trying to sell. I am not blaming my broker, just surprised he had zero knowledge about any of it until I told him. The buyers lawyer found out and that's why our deal fell apartment when my accepted offer suddenly was lowered by several thousand dollars due to the lawsuit and not knowing the outcome.
matsonjones- I was not the buyer in this case, but the buyer DID learn from her lawyer about the problem like you said. Should I be informing my possible "new broker" of the building problems or are you suggesting let the next buyer learn from their lawyer? I am not so sure how involved as an owner I should be in the process.
gaongaon- My story is very legitimate. My lawyer was engaged to basically field questions and provide answers until we were to go to contract with both apartments. I had an accepted offer on the larger apartment but had to sell mine at the same time in order to buy the larger one. The day I gave the green light on the purchase of the larger one, the buyers thru their agent for my apartment uncovered the lawsuit and dropped their offer substansially. I had no other buyer and no other way to make this work as they were firm at keeping to their new "lowball" bid. My lawyer was never deeply involved with the lawsuit thing as like you said, it began to snowball once the bid I accepted was significantly lowered on my apartment. The whole deal fell apart after 7 monts of trying to make it work.....
I took some time away from all of this, the apt. I wanted to buy finally sold after 15 months on the market, and I'm back again at square one.
matsonjones- My lawyer (who I intend to use for the future), never got that deeply involved with my building as we didn't even make it to contract yet on my place or on the new one. The contracts would have been issued that same week. Only thing that happened were that bids were made and accepted. I don't fault my lawyer at all, he would have found all of this out while doing his due diligence on my upcoming purchase as told me he would go thru all the financials and minutes if I wanted (which I would have), when it came time....... After the retraction of the accepted bid on my apartment, there was no reason to go forward............
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by kharby2
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 279
Member since: Oct 2009
Brokers are strictly, strictly prohibited from giving legal advice by law. Brokers are not private investigators nor investigative reporters. Court records are public information--except when they are not. You have not told us enough to assess to what extent this information is public. As an owner you are privy to information that outsiders are not.
To volunteer info to a prospective buyer about lawsuits might be construed as giving legal advice. It may also discourage buyers until you get no offers at all. But when asked directly, the broker needs to tell the truth. If the broker does not know, the broker cannot report the information, however.
It is the buyer's attorney's responsibility to conduct legal investigation of the building and to interpret findings for the buyer, and then to provide legal advice based on those findings. None of this is the job of the broker, and as I mentioned only lawyers are licensed to practice law.
Karla Harby VP
Charles Rutenberg Realty NYC
Chary@crrnyc.com
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by buyerbuyer
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 707
Member since: Jan 2010
what building is this: 8 foreclosures, 23mm lawsuit, doorman, banks not giving mortgages, apparently not a new building (he is trading up after several years). .....there can't be many buildings that fit this profile
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by damier212
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 124
Member since: Aug 2009
I would rather not disclose this on this board, except to say it is a very well known midtown pre-war high rise. I am sure some of the readers know my building, it is a prestigious building , very well run, and I love living here.
It just has some major problems on the table right now that never existed which came up in the last few years....I am hoping that it will all go away, but The Board cannot guarantee it, so the owners will need to be prepared for whatever the outcome will be.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by buyerbuyer
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 707
Member since: Jan 2010
But if there is a major lawsuit (public knowledge), and 8 foreclosures (public knowledge), that sets this bulding apart doesn't it. I didn't find it in a quick google search, but there must be a way to locate it.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by columbiacounty
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 12708
Member since: Jan 2009
hfscomm1
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by damier212
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 124
Member since: Aug 2009
I don't think my building needs bad publicity right now, buyerbuyer......the foreclosures may be half that number now as I heard that some were bank owned and were recently sold, but the lawsuit is very real.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by buyerbuyer
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 707
Member since: Jan 2010
Well, don't worry, who would know among the many pre-war, hi-rise., huge, doorman buildings with major lawsuits and 4 (or so or more) foreclosures).
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by columbiacounty
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 12708
Member since: Jan 2009
very clear
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by ab_11218
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 2017
Member since: May 2009
doesn't the building have an insurance policy that would cover it from this lawsuit? if not, doesn't every individual owner need an insurance policy that will cover it?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by buyerbuyer
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 707
Member since: Jan 2010
This whole posting seems odd to me, at first glance because he was living in the building and didn't bother to learn about such a large claim until he had already bought another unit. What is the basis for the 23MM lawsui?...seems like a large number for a building that has been around a few years at least. Also, how many buildings have 4 to 8 foreclosures going on in midtown? how many prewar condos are in midtown? how many large buildings with no availability of mortgage financing for buyers?...
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by NWT
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 6643
Member since: Sep 2008
The OP had told us months ago which condo it is, so no secret. There's only one active NY Supreme Court case with that condo as defendant, but it wasn't e-filed so can't tell what the story is. The plaintiff may be asking for $23M, but odds are against her getting it even if she wins.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by buyerbuyer
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 707
Member since: Jan 2010
oh ok...I'm sure the plaintiff's claim is overstated whatever it is, but surely someone on the board can give him a feel as to how serious the case is, if it may settle etc.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by damier212
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 124
Member since: Aug 2009
ab_11218- In answer to your commments, this lawsuit is very real. The Condo has paid $ 750,000.00 (you read that right in legal fees, all of these were recoverable by insurance.) However it was made clear to us by the Board that should we lose the whole suit, we as owners would be individually assessed up to 40G per apartment, the nature of the damages (I am not disclosing here), and non coverable under any insurance the Condo has or any homeownwers insurance.
(I can't imagine anyone would offer insurance to a "pre-exisiting" lawsuit, this has been going on for 3 years, it is finally gaining attention as it is due to go to court this spring).
People use Castle Village as an example when the retaining wall fell a few years ago, thank g-d not killing anyone, but it is to my understanding that the owners have to pay for the damages. They are suing the contractors that told them the wall was in good condition, but someone had to pay for it in the meantime....that's what I've heard.
buyerbuyer- Unfortunately, you did not cleary read my postings. I did not buy another unit in the same building, I was HOPING to buy another unit in the same building. When the seriousness of this lawsuit made my buyer re-think their bid and give me a new "lowball" bid due to their potential exposure, I couldn't buy the new bigger place in my building (the new owner wasn't going to budge, lawsuit or no lawsuit). I was faced with a big gamble that I couldn't afford to make, so I turned my buyer down, and turned down pursuing the new apartment. It only made good financial sense with the unknowns. I could equally be hit shortly with a huge assesment on the new apartment, make sense?
The Board is not really talking about this now as no one has any idea as to what may happen. As stated above the Condo has spent 750,000.00 in legal fees, so this is no light matter.
If the outcome is negative, it will have a major effect on sales and purchases in this building, how can it not.
And as far as difficulty in getting mortgages, ask around, alot of leading buildings I am told are having problems with buyers obtaining mortgages by conventional means even if the owner qualifies.......2010 was quite the year....
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by rb345
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 1273
Member since: Jun 2009
Damier212:
The appeals court for Manhattan ruled recently, i.e., 1-4 years ago if memory serves me correctly,
that individual condominium unit owners are not responsible for an unsatisfied judgment obtained as
the result of a personal injury suffered because of negligent maintenance of a Common Element, in
that instance a roof fence which broke free and injured two pedestrians, one severely.
The building was on the west side and had insufficient insurance to cover its judgment. The issue
before the court involved the definition of "owner" for purposes of Multiple Dwelling Law section
78(a). The condo was small and carried only $2,000,0000 in insurance. Hope this helps.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by damier212
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 124
Member since: Aug 2009
Thanks rb345, but this lawsuit does NOT involve personal injury. Without opening it all up here, which I think should be kept private in this forum, it has to do with property damaged as a result of what they claim were water leaks caused by my Condo which kept them from operating their business and the losses they incurred, etc. etc.
Any losses we have as a result of the courts determination WILL be assessed by the Conodominium which is not covered by insurance in this case either from the Condo or the tenants. We have already been warned.
But I thank you for your contribution.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by NYCREAgent
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 156
Member since: Sep 2010
Seems like damier212 started another "Bash the Broker" thread and it backfired.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by huntersburg
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 11329
Member since: Nov 2010
Brokers have to account for their own industry, but brokers can't be blamed for dishonest clients. damier212 wanted to sell his or her apartment and not disclose, unless specifically asked, material information on the situation in the building that any buyer would want to know.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by damier212
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 124
Member since: Aug 2009
NYCREAgent- Wrong! It was not a bash the broker thread and nothing backfired one way or the other.
I think you must have mis-interpreted the entire thread. I am not anti broker, but I am not saying an individual cannot sell on their own IF they have time to do it. I know some wonderful brokers in NY and some that if I asked them what color the sky is, I would go outside to double check!
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by maly
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 1377
Member since: Jan 2009
Answer to your question: nothing. What a seller's broker doesn't know cannot hurt him/her. The buyer's lawyer is the only one on the hook, and very little survives the contract of sale for anyone else involved in the transaction ( because it is written that way.)
It's not necessarily true elsewhere, but NYC is all about caveat emptor, buyer beware. A broker would have to be extraordinarily imprudent (committing fraud and putting it in writing) to be held accountable.
This is why having a competent, savvy lawyer is paramount. Don't believe a word a broker says.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by damier212
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 124
Member since: Aug 2009
Thank you maly for your intelligent, well articulated comment. Perhaps some of the volatile, accusatory readers that just want to creat "high drama" on this board will read your posting and understand.
Some of the readers on Street Easy (including me), just post questions,wondering how to handle situations, etc. and the "bashers" are here to insult , mock, and harass........It's pointless and puerile.
On the other hand I have received excellent advice from many readers, so I am happy to say the insult basher crowd is in the minority.
'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
hmm lets see, broker knew nothing, lawyer found it... sounds about right.
yes, gcondo you are correct................but shouldn't the broker know this information if they are selling the apartment to begin with or am I being unrealistic considering they make thousands of dollars in commission on the deal?
damier - isn't it a little unreasonable to expect your broker to know more than you, the owner of the apartment, about your building's finances/problems? YOU had access to board minutes, revealing the details of the problem; your broker normally does not until a contract is out and the buyer's lawyer requests board minutes (due diligence)
I am really sorry to say this, but it is not the broker's responsibility. It is yours as the buyer. This is why a top notch real estate attorney and excellent building inspector who will due thorough due diligence working solely your behalf as the buyer are such crucial parts of the equation for any potential purchaser. I mean no disrespect to any brokers out there, but the most important part of my 'team' when buying property are my lawyer and my building inspector. When selling, it is my lawyer and then the broker (if not FSBO, of course).
If, however, the broker hid or purposely misrepresented information, that would be another matter entirely, and one might possibly have a legal case on those grounds.
Damier, your story sounds very legitimate since you were planning to buy a larger place in your building. Where was your lawyer through all of this? You had an accepted offer on the larger apt.? I'm referring to the lawyer who was to handle your purchase of the other apt.? Did this whole lawsuit thing start to snowball rapidly? How could your lawyer not have warned you?
I find it odd that if you used the same lawyer for both transaction, NEITHER time, in either transaction, in the same building, did the lawyer uncover such an epic situation.
ph41- Yes you are probably right that it may be unreasonable to expect my broker to know more than me about my buildings finances and/or problems, but to know nothing? If questioned by the buyers broker or client, I think he should know what hes talking about before selling a high priced apartment and if asked anything about the financials of the building, should be able to talk about them. I don't think that is too much to ask for. Many people in my building (it is a huge bldg.), didn't know about the pending lawsuit or how serious it is. I started taking interest when I was finding out that banks were turning mortgages down in my bldg and I wanted to know why. I don't read all of the building minutes after living there 15 years, now it seems like it's what I must do, as I am trying to sell. I am not blaming my broker, just surprised he had zero knowledge about any of it until I told him. The buyers lawyer found out and that's why our deal fell apartment when my accepted offer suddenly was lowered by several thousand dollars due to the lawsuit and not knowing the outcome.
matsonjones- I was not the buyer in this case, but the buyer DID learn from her lawyer about the problem like you said. Should I be informing my possible "new broker" of the building problems or are you suggesting let the next buyer learn from their lawyer? I am not so sure how involved as an owner I should be in the process.
gaongaon- My story is very legitimate. My lawyer was engaged to basically field questions and provide answers until we were to go to contract with both apartments. I had an accepted offer on the larger apartment but had to sell mine at the same time in order to buy the larger one. The day I gave the green light on the purchase of the larger one, the buyers thru their agent for my apartment uncovered the lawsuit and dropped their offer substansially. I had no other buyer and no other way to make this work as they were firm at keeping to their new "lowball" bid. My lawyer was never deeply involved with the lawsuit thing as like you said, it began to snowball once the bid I accepted was significantly lowered on my apartment. The whole deal fell apart after 7 monts of trying to make it work.....
I took some time away from all of this, the apt. I wanted to buy finally sold after 15 months on the market, and I'm back again at square one.
matsonjones- My lawyer (who I intend to use for the future), never got that deeply involved with my building as we didn't even make it to contract yet on my place or on the new one. The contracts would have been issued that same week. Only thing that happened were that bids were made and accepted. I don't fault my lawyer at all, he would have found all of this out while doing his due diligence on my upcoming purchase as told me he would go thru all the financials and minutes if I wanted (which I would have), when it came time....... After the retraction of the accepted bid on my apartment, there was no reason to go forward............
Brokers are strictly, strictly prohibited from giving legal advice by law. Brokers are not private investigators nor investigative reporters. Court records are public information--except when they are not. You have not told us enough to assess to what extent this information is public. As an owner you are privy to information that outsiders are not.
To volunteer info to a prospective buyer about lawsuits might be construed as giving legal advice. It may also discourage buyers until you get no offers at all. But when asked directly, the broker needs to tell the truth. If the broker does not know, the broker cannot report the information, however.
It is the buyer's attorney's responsibility to conduct legal investigation of the building and to interpret findings for the buyer, and then to provide legal advice based on those findings. None of this is the job of the broker, and as I mentioned only lawyers are licensed to practice law.
Karla Harby VP
Charles Rutenberg Realty NYC
Chary@crrnyc.com
what building is this: 8 foreclosures, 23mm lawsuit, doorman, banks not giving mortgages, apparently not a new building (he is trading up after several years). .....there can't be many buildings that fit this profile
I would rather not disclose this on this board, except to say it is a very well known midtown pre-war high rise. I am sure some of the readers know my building, it is a prestigious building , very well run, and I love living here.
It just has some major problems on the table right now that never existed which came up in the last few years....I am hoping that it will all go away, but The Board cannot guarantee it, so the owners will need to be prepared for whatever the outcome will be.
But if there is a major lawsuit (public knowledge), and 8 foreclosures (public knowledge), that sets this bulding apart doesn't it. I didn't find it in a quick google search, but there must be a way to locate it.
hfscomm1
I don't think my building needs bad publicity right now, buyerbuyer......the foreclosures may be half that number now as I heard that some were bank owned and were recently sold, but the lawsuit is very real.
Well, don't worry, who would know among the many pre-war, hi-rise., huge, doorman buildings with major lawsuits and 4 (or so or more) foreclosures).
very clear
doesn't the building have an insurance policy that would cover it from this lawsuit? if not, doesn't every individual owner need an insurance policy that will cover it?
This whole posting seems odd to me, at first glance because he was living in the building and didn't bother to learn about such a large claim until he had already bought another unit. What is the basis for the 23MM lawsui?...seems like a large number for a building that has been around a few years at least. Also, how many buildings have 4 to 8 foreclosures going on in midtown? how many prewar condos are in midtown? how many large buildings with no availability of mortgage financing for buyers?...
The OP had told us months ago which condo it is, so no secret. There's only one active NY Supreme Court case with that condo as defendant, but it wasn't e-filed so can't tell what the story is. The plaintiff may be asking for $23M, but odds are against her getting it even if she wins.
oh ok...I'm sure the plaintiff's claim is overstated whatever it is, but surely someone on the board can give him a feel as to how serious the case is, if it may settle etc.
ab_11218- In answer to your commments, this lawsuit is very real. The Condo has paid $ 750,000.00 (you read that right in legal fees, all of these were recoverable by insurance.) However it was made clear to us by the Board that should we lose the whole suit, we as owners would be individually assessed up to 40G per apartment, the nature of the damages (I am not disclosing here), and non coverable under any insurance the Condo has or any homeownwers insurance.
(I can't imagine anyone would offer insurance to a "pre-exisiting" lawsuit, this has been going on for 3 years, it is finally gaining attention as it is due to go to court this spring).
People use Castle Village as an example when the retaining wall fell a few years ago, thank g-d not killing anyone, but it is to my understanding that the owners have to pay for the damages. They are suing the contractors that told them the wall was in good condition, but someone had to pay for it in the meantime....that's what I've heard.
buyerbuyer- Unfortunately, you did not cleary read my postings. I did not buy another unit in the same building, I was HOPING to buy another unit in the same building. When the seriousness of this lawsuit made my buyer re-think their bid and give me a new "lowball" bid due to their potential exposure, I couldn't buy the new bigger place in my building (the new owner wasn't going to budge, lawsuit or no lawsuit). I was faced with a big gamble that I couldn't afford to make, so I turned my buyer down, and turned down pursuing the new apartment. It only made good financial sense with the unknowns. I could equally be hit shortly with a huge assesment on the new apartment, make sense?
The Board is not really talking about this now as no one has any idea as to what may happen. As stated above the Condo has spent 750,000.00 in legal fees, so this is no light matter.
If the outcome is negative, it will have a major effect on sales and purchases in this building, how can it not.
And as far as difficulty in getting mortgages, ask around, alot of leading buildings I am told are having problems with buyers obtaining mortgages by conventional means even if the owner qualifies.......2010 was quite the year....
Damier212:
The appeals court for Manhattan ruled recently, i.e., 1-4 years ago if memory serves me correctly,
that individual condominium unit owners are not responsible for an unsatisfied judgment obtained as
the result of a personal injury suffered because of negligent maintenance of a Common Element, in
that instance a roof fence which broke free and injured two pedestrians, one severely.
The building was on the west side and had insufficient insurance to cover its judgment. The issue
before the court involved the definition of "owner" for purposes of Multiple Dwelling Law section
78(a). The condo was small and carried only $2,000,0000 in insurance. Hope this helps.
Thanks rb345, but this lawsuit does NOT involve personal injury. Without opening it all up here, which I think should be kept private in this forum, it has to do with property damaged as a result of what they claim were water leaks caused by my Condo which kept them from operating their business and the losses they incurred, etc. etc.
Any losses we have as a result of the courts determination WILL be assessed by the Conodominium which is not covered by insurance in this case either from the Condo or the tenants. We have already been warned.
But I thank you for your contribution.
Seems like damier212 started another "Bash the Broker" thread and it backfired.
Brokers have to account for their own industry, but brokers can't be blamed for dishonest clients. damier212 wanted to sell his or her apartment and not disclose, unless specifically asked, material information on the situation in the building that any buyer would want to know.
NYCREAgent- Wrong! It was not a bash the broker thread and nothing backfired one way or the other.
I think you must have mis-interpreted the entire thread. I am not anti broker, but I am not saying an individual cannot sell on their own IF they have time to do it. I know some wonderful brokers in NY and some that if I asked them what color the sky is, I would go outside to double check!
Answer to your question: nothing. What a seller's broker doesn't know cannot hurt him/her. The buyer's lawyer is the only one on the hook, and very little survives the contract of sale for anyone else involved in the transaction ( because it is written that way.)
It's not necessarily true elsewhere, but NYC is all about caveat emptor, buyer beware. A broker would have to be extraordinarily imprudent (committing fraud and putting it in writing) to be held accountable.
This is why having a competent, savvy lawyer is paramount. Don't believe a word a broker says.
Thank you maly for your intelligent, well articulated comment. Perhaps some of the volatile, accusatory readers that just want to creat "high drama" on this board will read your posting and understand.
Some of the readers on Street Easy (including me), just post questions,wondering how to handle situations, etc. and the "bashers" are here to insult , mock, and harass........It's pointless and puerile.
On the other hand I have received excellent advice from many readers, so I am happy to say the insult basher crowd is in the minority.