bankruptcy in building

Are you talking about "bankruptcies" or FORECLOSURES?

The 1A/2A tenant is already bankrupt, so the shares are being sold by the court.

If there're maintenance arrears they'll be paid to the co-op, but I don't know whether by the court out of the proceeds or by the buyer.

If you're thinking of something like the sex-offender website that lists locations, there's nothing like that for bankrupt people. There's no search by address at http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov, but maybe the public database at the courthouse lets you search by creditor, so the co-op might show up.

I don't know that you'd be getting yourself into much, except to the extent a shareholder not paying their maintenance has to be carried by the rest until the arrears are finally paid.

Also, check the financials for the maintenance-receivable number, and if there's litigation with a shareholder there'll be a note about that, too.

Obviously a building with 2 apts in foreclosure isn't a good sign, BUT, any maintenance in arrears is paid by the bank. Coop maintenance takes priority over mortgage liabilities.

If you ask the board, aren't they obligated to share that info?

A thread about bankruptcy ... apt23 is here like white on rice.

how would you characterize your sudden appearance?

When would my appearance not be deemed "sudden"?

columbiacounty
about 1 hour ago
stop ignoring this person
report abuse how would you characterize your sudden appearance

wipe the cum off your mouth cc, that's disgusting.

hfs---what is you point?

the description says us bankruptcy court not foreclosure. i worked with a broker back in late july about an apartment there and even saw the financials and there were no footnotes indicating any arrears. i was assured the building was sound and the shareholders were as well. could anyone have known then? is this something that could have happened that quickly in august or september 2011? and not known in july? i am looking elsewhere but want to know how to investigate a building should this be a problem increasing with the job market the way it is. thank you also for the feedback.

>columbiacounty
20 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse
>hfs---what is you point?

Even more baffling than a few months ago when you kept shouting your Hitler Youth crap, you keep mentioning 'hfs' - does that stand for something that anyone but you even knows?

sure.

what's your point?

A verbal assurance is worth nothing. If you didn't see a large "maintenance receivable" or "due from shareholders" asset line item in the financials, then the troubled shareholder was current on her maintenance. A shareholder could be in hock up to their ears elsewhere but still be current on his maintenance and share loan.

What you seem to be looking for, and aren't going to get anywhere, is an assurance by a co-op that its shareholders are always going to be carrying their share of the weight. The real question is, what protection does a co-op have against a shareholder going to the bad?

If a shareholder gets into arrears on maintenance, then the co-op can force a foreclosure, evict the shareholder, and sell the shares. From the proceeds the co-op recovers its arrears and legal fees, and pays the difference to the shareholder or the shareholder's lender.

If a shareholder defaults on his share loan, then the lender sells the shares, pays the co-op its arrears, and pays itself.

In most co-ops, its no big deal for the other shareholders to make up for the arrears while all that works itself out. At a small co-op, e.g. with 20 units like the one you saw, the other shareholders either increase their own maintenance to cover the 5% shortfall, or spend down cash. (It's better to raise maintenance, as you ultimately get more from the bad shareholder.)

Some co-ops in the 1980s and early 1990s ran into trouble with sponsors holding lots of unsold shares who couldn't pay maintenance. The co-ops ending up owning the shares, collecting rent from the tenants, and selling the shares as the apartments were vacated. That's a different and more complex story, though.

>sure.
>what's your point?

Ah, I see from your personal and professional legal troubles that you've been trained by your defense counsel to answer questions as they are posed, but nothing else.