We closed on a renovated combination apartment a few months ago. The apartment is a post war coop on upper east side. Even though it was renovated 10 years ago, we decided we wanted to enlarge kitchen by eliminating a bathroom. While filing the appropriate paperwork with the coop board, we find out the previous owners who gutted and combined the apartment put in massive water pumps and electrical... [more]
We closed on a renovated combination apartment a few months ago. The apartment is a post war coop on upper east side. Even though it was renovated 10 years ago, we decided we wanted to enlarge kitchen by eliminating a bathroom. While filing the appropriate paperwork with the coop board, we find out the previous owners who gutted and combined the apartment put in massive water pumps and electrical panels that were never approved by the board in a separete master bathroom that we were not planning to touch. The managing agent is new to the building and doesn't know how this happened. They can't find any paperwork from the previous renovation. The illegal pumps are negatively affecting the rest of the building and we are being required to remove them and replace a lot of the bathroom appliances. Do we have any recourse against the previous owners?
[less]
Response by basicinformation
over 12 years ago
Posts: 82
Member since: Oct 2008
I cannot help, but I would be curious to hear from educated members what the answer is
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by flarf
over 12 years ago
Posts: 515
Member since: Jan 2011
Pretty common for the buyer's attorney to include a rider that the seller represents any/all alterations made to the unit were done to code and with the knowledge/permission of the corporation. Did your attorney attach any such language to the contract?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by SB12
over 12 years ago
Posts: 3
Member since: Jun 2012
Thanks. The rider was in our contract. We're waiting to find out what exactly needs to be replaced and cost before contacting thier lawyer. We just find the timing strange- the bathroom renovation was done 7 years ago. And the issue is coming up now. We don't understand why this wasn't discovered years ago if it has such a huge impact in the building. We also don't want to interfere with our approval for our planned renovation.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by mucuk
over 12 years ago
Posts: 79
Member since: Mar 2009
How exactly do they know they were unapproved if they can't find any paperwork?
What is the alleged negative impact on the rest of the building that no one noticed for seven years?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by SB12
over 12 years ago
Posts: 3
Member since: Jun 2012
The negative impact is reduced water pressure to all of the apartments in the line next to us (16 floor building). It seems odd to us that it took 7 years to figure out. The managing agent is the one who informed us that the pumps were not approved. Not sure if the board confirmed that. We're waiting to see if simply replacing the pumps is sufficient, or if we are going to have to renovate a "renovated" bathroom. We are trying to be as cooperative as possible in order to not hold up our planned renovation. We understand that any litigation will be between us and the previous owner.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by mucuk
over 12 years ago
Posts: 79
Member since: Mar 2009
Do they have any evidence of the loss of water pressure, or is the message here that you have a fancy jacuzzi tub that they are jealous of?
I doubt the seller is going to just fold and pay for a new bathroom for you if no one can evidence that they provided false plans to the board. Their having lost the paperwork is most unhelpful for you. If the managing agent at the time simply approved something it shouldn't have, that is not the sellers' problem.
Litigation is your last choice. Keep in mind that you may lose and have to pay attorney's fees.
Best option here is to haggle with the building a bit as it sounds like they are a bit lost.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by mucuk
over 12 years ago
Posts: 79
Member since: Mar 2009
I am still very confused by your statement that the managing agent has declared the work unapproved with no records.
You'd be surprised what can get approved when people aren't paying attention or when people grease the wheels a bit. This is not a hard and fast process.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by NWT
over 12 years ago
Posts: 6643
Member since: Sep 2008
A jacuzzi pump wouldn't affect water pressure. Sounds as if it's a power shower, with a pump sucking water from the riser and reducing other people's water pressure.
The usual case is that a board and its architect approve a set of plans, and then the shareholder sneaks in something not included in the plans. The former managing agent will have turned over the agreement and plans when it lost the building, and they'll turn up in a filing cabinet somewhere. (My co-op has lots of interesting old plans in the cellar.)
Your governing docs will most likely say that you bought the problem along with the shares.
Your least-expensive tack will likely be to just make the offending bathroom conform. In the meantime it won't hurt to verify just what your contract with the seller said about the work they'd done.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by pier45
over 12 years ago
Posts: 379
Member since: May 2009
Just being fair, approved or not if the device pumps water out of the riser to increase shower water pressure it would be a dick-ish move to keep using it. This sounds like the kind of person who connects a dryer exhaust to a fan riser and blows lint into everyone's apartment.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by SB12
over 12 years ago
Posts: 3
Member since: Jun 2012
Yes, you are right- it is a power shower with a pump sucking water from the riser. We weren't going to move in until March so the pump has been turned off. We really don't care about having to take the pumps out. But, we're concerned if we have to replace bath/ shower etc. The owner was on the board at the time, but was kicked off a few years later we found out. He may have snuck the pumps in thinking he wouldn't get caught since he was on the board. We're waiting to find out from the building engineer what needs to be done. Thanks for the advice
I cannot help, but I would be curious to hear from educated members what the answer is
Pretty common for the buyer's attorney to include a rider that the seller represents any/all alterations made to the unit were done to code and with the knowledge/permission of the corporation. Did your attorney attach any such language to the contract?
Thanks. The rider was in our contract. We're waiting to find out what exactly needs to be replaced and cost before contacting thier lawyer. We just find the timing strange- the bathroom renovation was done 7 years ago. And the issue is coming up now. We don't understand why this wasn't discovered years ago if it has such a huge impact in the building. We also don't want to interfere with our approval for our planned renovation.
How exactly do they know they were unapproved if they can't find any paperwork?
What is the alleged negative impact on the rest of the building that no one noticed for seven years?
The negative impact is reduced water pressure to all of the apartments in the line next to us (16 floor building). It seems odd to us that it took 7 years to figure out. The managing agent is the one who informed us that the pumps were not approved. Not sure if the board confirmed that. We're waiting to see if simply replacing the pumps is sufficient, or if we are going to have to renovate a "renovated" bathroom. We are trying to be as cooperative as possible in order to not hold up our planned renovation. We understand that any litigation will be between us and the previous owner.
Do they have any evidence of the loss of water pressure, or is the message here that you have a fancy jacuzzi tub that they are jealous of?
I doubt the seller is going to just fold and pay for a new bathroom for you if no one can evidence that they provided false plans to the board. Their having lost the paperwork is most unhelpful for you. If the managing agent at the time simply approved something it shouldn't have, that is not the sellers' problem.
Litigation is your last choice. Keep in mind that you may lose and have to pay attorney's fees.
Best option here is to haggle with the building a bit as it sounds like they are a bit lost.
I am still very confused by your statement that the managing agent has declared the work unapproved with no records.
You'd be surprised what can get approved when people aren't paying attention or when people grease the wheels a bit. This is not a hard and fast process.
A jacuzzi pump wouldn't affect water pressure. Sounds as if it's a power shower, with a pump sucking water from the riser and reducing other people's water pressure.
The usual case is that a board and its architect approve a set of plans, and then the shareholder sneaks in something not included in the plans. The former managing agent will have turned over the agreement and plans when it lost the building, and they'll turn up in a filing cabinet somewhere. (My co-op has lots of interesting old plans in the cellar.)
Your governing docs will most likely say that you bought the problem along with the shares.
Your least-expensive tack will likely be to just make the offending bathroom conform. In the meantime it won't hurt to verify just what your contract with the seller said about the work they'd done.
Just being fair, approved or not if the device pumps water out of the riser to increase shower water pressure it would be a dick-ish move to keep using it. This sounds like the kind of person who connects a dryer exhaust to a fan riser and blows lint into everyone's apartment.
Yes, you are right- it is a power shower with a pump sucking water from the riser. We weren't going to move in until March so the pump has been turned off. We really don't care about having to take the pumps out. But, we're concerned if we have to replace bath/ shower etc. The owner was on the board at the time, but was kicked off a few years later we found out. He may have snuck the pumps in thinking he wouldn't get caught since he was on the board. We're waiting to find out from the building engineer what needs to be done. Thanks for the advice