notice of eviction

Is your neighbor 300_mercer?

no

Your neighbor doesnt "own the apartment" he own the shares and has a proprietary lease on the apt. The eviction terminates the lease. The termination of the tenancy means his shares would be sold by the co-op and the proceeds turned over to him after the costs of the sale, litigation expenses and other amounts due have been deducted. If he has a mortgage the bank has a lien on the shares. At least that's my understanding (and I'm neither a lawyer nor a plumber.)

assuming there is a mortgage tied to the property, does the bank typically make good on the unpaid maintenece and then take ownship of the property ahead of foreclosure?

Your answer may be in here somewhere:

https://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/16789-buying-is-always-a-big-mistake

There's no foreclosure. The apt (shares) just get sold, lender gets paid, coop gets paid, evicted owner gets the rest (their equity).

Inorder to evict, this I believe has to go to landlord tenant court.

thanks for your help on this. it loocks like its a quick process.

The order of liens is, first the co-op and then the lender. The former owner gets anything remaining.

The co-op is obliged to notify the lender of maintenance arrears, so the lender may step in and pay the arrears and add that amount to what it's owed.

The recognition agreement probably controls what happens when, as far as a lender goes.

Not necessarily a quick process if the owner has a grievance against the coop which comes out in court.

Assuming we're talking TriBeCa, is your neighbor's situation really so unsalvageable? She can't get a roommate and start catching up on maintenance/mortgage? Or move somewhere else and sublet the subject property for a couple of years until her situation improves?

I simply dont know alanhart. I was just curious as to the legal timeline for resolving the issue.

The order of claim is the BANK then the cooperative. Been there on the Board. The first time this happened, the owner was going through a divorce, the husband moved out, and neither party paid maintenance for almost 2 years. When the wife moved, she took a sledge hammer to the kitchen cabinets, bathtubs, sinks, and toilets. We didn't get all we were owed back since the apartment was devalued significantly.

After that incident, our attorney set up escalating letters for non-payment with hefty fines. The third month was the trigger for going to court. We did bring one resident to court twice before they sold. They thought they could coast without paying maintenance and got tired of the harassment and fines.

In my current building, they publish the names of residents who have more than 3 months of back maintenance due. This appears in the lobby and on Building Link.

I would add that if non-payment is related to a dispute with the Board, you have to set up an escrow account with your maintenace deposited each month. You have to notify the Board about that.

The order of claim is determined by the recognition agreement. Did your co-op not have one between itself, the shareholder, and the lender? Or did the agreement give first dibs to the bank? Either story would be unusual.

Jelj13, disclosure of an unpaid debt is against the law. If your attorney is giving you this advice, get another attorney.

Public disclosure that is

re: disclosure of an unpaid debt is against the law

now there's an interesting question - is it legal in a ccop to post the names of shareholders who are delinquent. It's a private corporation......???

^^ what NWT said about the recognition agreement (known colloquially as the Aztech), with the added caveat that it's still a long way between a notice of eviction and a change in control of the shares of stock. Delinquent shareholder still has a chance to pay the delinquent maintenance, and likely will.

ali r.
DG Neary Realty

West34,
I'd say that postage of such names in the lobby would be public disclosure -- visitors, staff, etc. can plainly see it. However, if the document containing the names were for example to be sent in an email to all shareholders with a privacy notice at the bottom (as is standard procedure with company emails), then THAT would be legal. Just my hypothesis though :-)

"The order of claim is the BANK then the cooperative."

Wow. Someone at your co-op fucked up. The whole purpose of the recognition agreement is to protect the co-op.

In nearly ALL co-ops, the order of the claim is the CO-OP first, then the lender.

As stated, the Aztech recognition agreement that all co-ops have protects the co-op BEFORE the bank. In a condo, its bank first. But it seems like its a far away timeline for eviction as there are many factors involved including any potential legal grievances etc. The government (taxes)will get paid first, then co-op, then, bank, and down the line. http://nyforeclosures.com/mastering/co-op_main.html

Hmm, I wonder then which building it is that 300_Mercer is having his financial troubles in.

Guywithcat: I have nothing to do with the building posting unpaid maintenance as I am not on the Board. No one has complained, not even the people who have their names posted.

When I was on the Board in my last building, we kept these matters private. We did discuss the amount of unpaid maintenance at meeetings for residents. We did not disclose the names of the residents as we felt that would be tacky.

Aztech: I was in a building that converted to a coop in the mid '80s and there was no Aztech agreement. (Still have the paperwork from that purchase, along with the "mortgage".) This came up as an issue years later when people wanted to refinance to pay for renovations. Those who had "mortgages" taken during the conversion were pretty upset when they found out the amount of paperwork the Board mandated for any new "mortgages". That's when they saw the differences between coops and condos.

1. in most cases a lender on the property will pay the Coop what it is owed
2. if it is owned free and clear and the owner cant pay he can file bankruptcy

3. the bankrupcy court will then stay the Coop's court claim and, if a deal
for payment of arrears cant be arranged, order the apt sold

4. recent cases have given bankruptcy trustees the right to assume debtors
rent-stabilized leases and sell them