Incorrect Maintenance Calculation

Are you asking if the maintenance was calculated correctly based on the percentage of total shares or if the original shares were not correctly allocated?

If the original shares for a specific apartment were allocated correctly

You are out of luck. Reducing your shares will increase will increase number of shares for others. Why would they ever agree to that. In addition, when you bought, you agreed to buy certain number of shares with a lease to use a certain space. You due diligence opportunity is over when you bought.

What makes you think the shares were miscalculated?

Keep in mind that share allocation is not an exact science. Elements like view, floor level and natural light all come into play. So if your apartment is on a high floor with open views it may have more shares allocated to it than the exact same unit on a lower floor with no view.

Also, if your apartment was split into more than one unit at conversion and then later recombined, the resulting unit will almost always have more shares than a comparable unit that has remained intact since conversion.

Its a larger high floor apartment with lots of outdoor space ......in comparing to other units on lower floors with no outdoor space - seems like maintenance should be higher........if there was a mistake in the calculation for this apartment - what would be the steps to remedy the situation - if any

Share allocations need to be "rational and reasonable" but that's about it, so it is hard to argue that origianl share allocations are "wrong" per se. I think you would have to get a shareholder vote and obtain a super majority of all shares outstanding in order to do a reallocation of shares.

Why would you want your maintenance to be higher?

Seems like, contrary to the question you posed, what you really want is to increase the maintenance for one of your neighbors. That is not going to happen. At the outset, there may have been reasons for the maintenance allocation to appear by today's standards to be misallocated. For one, outdoor space in a polluted and unsafe city did not always command a premium. Get over it.

Generally, outside space is calculated at 1/2 of indoor space when it comes to maintenance allocation.

> eastside - if you figure out how to reduce your maintenance please let me know LOL!!!

nyc_sport - I'm only asking a fair question...given that its an outdoor terrace with wraparound views with 3 exposures in a desirable hood......I just happened to see the financials at year end and was shocked to see that this apartment was paying the same as a much lower floor apartment with no outdoor space/or views.....sometimes people make mistakes...this is not about attacking a neighbor but being vigilant.

Sponsor played games - probably because the apartment was originally rent stabilized and he would have been carrying the maintebce for years with very low rental income. Saw this exact thing in my building.
The new sponsor lucked out when the original tenant passed away, and the apartment could be sold as a sponsor unit (no board approval) at market price with relatively very low maintenance.

>eastside - if you'd looked at the prospectus you would have picked up on the fact that the number of shares for your apartment was oddly close to those of the same apartments below you withou terrace

eastside, There is no recourse as long as the shares are clearly stated. The sponsor may have been able to sell the apartment at a premium due to the outdoor space not been factored in. In any case, all the buyers including you bought with the knowledge that their shares are the same as apt with terrace. Now you are just trying to stiff some one who paid a premium due to lower than expected maintenance. In my building, there is no difference in shares between lower floors and higher floors. It is known to every one and no one should try to change it.

>300 mercer - don't think EASTSIDE is trying to "stiff" someone as he knows HE is the one with the oddly low maintenance. I think he was afraid that someone would try to increase HIS maintenance , not realizing this cannot be done as all shares as stated in the prospectus must stay in place

ph41 - I'm not the apt with low maintenance - I'm just saying this higher floor apt seems to be ........how would I know the sq footage etc when looking at prospectus - it just lists rooms - its virtually impossible to know any of this without seeing the apartment - which I happened to see prior it being sold .......and it was actually sold at a discount many years ago.......

The prospectus shows floor plans , and shows shares allocated to each apartment. While coops did not show square footage in the prospectus, For quite a while now sellers state square footage ( numbers they often make up)

Look at your prospectus and the floorplans!!!!

Are you talking about about 16 Park? Make sure you're looking in the right places. E.g., in the offering plan PHS is 100 shares and it's listed as a studio. When it sold later it'd been combined with 16C and 16D, and is 331 shares. It's still called PHS.

As somebody said above, in conversions the existing tenants and their lawyers go over the share allocation to make sure the sponsor wasn't trying anything on, and anything off would've been spotted.

NWT - am always in awe of your

Always in awe of your RE knowledge but in my building the maintenance for the terraced apartment was definitely fiddled with. Maintenance is only $100 more than the same nonterraced apartment one floor up