when renters become buyers

1. seems to be a real overreach, but that doesn't mean it is unenforceable
2. tenant purchase clauses are common in commercial leases

3. but I have never or rarely heard of one in a residential condo or coop leasing
agreement between a broker and a landlord
\\\\

Is there a time period, i.e., the broker gets the commission only if the renter buys within the period of the initial lease, or within two years of signing the lease, etc., or is this forever with that tenant?

I'd agree that it's a stretch, but if I were a broker I'd ask for the same thing. It's a contract and you signed it, and therefore agreed to it. Are you tenants interested in buying?

Time period for the clause? How long was the lease?

I wouldn't say it's typical, but I've seen it before. I just did a rental deal (representing the tenants) in Greenwich Village, and the firm representing the landlord -- one of the five biggest in Manhattan -- had a clause just like that. I called my clients' attention to it, and they were like, "we're not concerned, because we're never going to buy this unit."

ali r.
{downtown broker}

Yes, they are out there so always read contracts carefully. When we used brokers, we crossed out the clause. If they didn't agree, we used another broker. When I list for an owner, I don't put the clause in. To each their own but personally, I don't feel it's right.

~justmy2

1. people who sign contracts are held to their terms even if they don't read them

2. that much said, if the broker is representing an owner and has signed a
listing agreement with the owner - or tenant - which is his /her client, the
broker might be under a fiduciary duty to unilaterally disclose the term
requiring payment of a second fee because it is unexpected and so unusual,
because as a fiduciary a broker cannot take advantage of the client in any manner

1. people who sign contracts are held to their terms even if they don't read them

2. that much said, if the broker is representing an owner and has signed a
listing agreement with the owner - or tenant - which is his /her client, the
broker might be under a fiduciary duty to unilaterally disclose the term
requiring payment of a second fee because it is unexpected and so unusual,
because as a fiduciary a broker cannot take advantage of the client in any manner

Can anyone point to brokerage firms in NYC that do not make use of this clause, or that will remove it upon request? I have also been told that one brokerage firm in NYC refuses to put a time period on the clause, meaning that if they bring me a tenant for one year, and then the tenant moves out and moves to China for 20 years, comes back to NYC and offers to buy my condo, I would have to pay the brokerage the fee. The logic is that time doesn't change the fact that the brokerage brought me the buyer. Am I the only one who thinks this sounds crazy?

we do not require this lease, although it is standard