justme's Profile
Author's Posts
April 1, 2008
eviction and ownership
If a shareholder owns their coop (no mortgage) but does not pay their maintenance and the board begins eviction proceedings who then, gets the apartment if the shareholder is evicted?
I know the board can recoup the lost money once the place is sold but who can sell it (owner, bank or coop?). thanks
March 20, 2008
WHY BROKERS DO IT?
Since everyone love sto bash a broker or two (especially Corcoran's) can anyone tell me why brokers will price something so out of price range of every freagin' comp in the area and GET THE ASK PRICE? So many FSBO's who can't attract w/ a better price than what an agent who has jacke up a price to cover the commission and still get the price they ask? Frankly I find it disgusting.
March 10, 2008
What to do with a pesky broker
So I am trying to sell my place (FSBO). I have very specifically stated no brokers on all my ads. I keep getting a call from one broker in particular. She calls me just about every other day. She does not identify herself as a broker but I know who she is and I know who she works with. I have told her in no uncertain terms to NOT call me, I don't want to use a broker and I wouldn't use her if I did. I have told her if she insists on calling me I will report her to the state for violating the Do Not Call registry (I know brokers/agents fall into this catagory). Yet she continues to call.
Short of ripping her a new one anyone have any suggestions?
Author's Comments
ok, just read it and would still like to know...
Posted by: justme at March 28, 2008 9:42 AM in response to Park Slope: The Canary in the Coalmine
OP here: so, if the coop is successful in evicting this person then the coop assumes ownership of the apartment and then when they sell it the proceeds go to the reserve?
Posted by: justme at April 1, 2008 1:19 PM in response to eviction and ownership
ok so: the shareholder gets evicted, coop puts apt up for sale (hopefully at current market value), they sell it. owed money goes back to coop (plus fees, interest and whatever is owed), the remaining amount goes to shareholder who was evicted? correct?
Posted by: justme at April 1, 2008 4:27 PM in response to eviction and ownership
Responses to Author's Forum Comments
The coop has no right to the apt. The coop can evict and sell, but all it gets to keep is the back maintenance and legal fees etc.
Posted by: denton at April 1, 2008 1:41 PM in response to eviction and ownership
If that is true (and my bad not have read the OP correctly) then who determines what fair market price is? What is to stop Co-op from selling low?
Posted by: Putnamdenizen at April 1, 2008 2:15 PM in response to eviction and ownership
It would be unwise for the coop to sell low - thereby potentially lowering the value of their own individual apartments due to "comps." In fact some coops have the power to insist on a seller meeting a minimum price when they are selling or they can kill the sale.
Owning a co-op means owning shares in a corporation that has been set up for the benefit of a collective community of owners. It also means following the rules and laws that have been set up for the building. If an owner doesn't do this, the co-op has powers to remove that owner by taking away the owner's shares and forcing a sale. Condos are a different ballgame because the owner actually holds title to the physical apartment. It can be tougher with condos to remove an owner, although steps can be taken to force one out. Liens can also be placed on condos.
It's possible that the co-op may legally be able to either force the owner to sell if the maintenance is not being paid, and subtract the maintenance owed and maybe even attorney's fees from the seller's proceeds at closing, or buy the apt. from the owner and evict the owner, again subtracting maintenance and legal fees owed to the coop after a sale.
Get a lawyer.
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 2:33 PM in response to eviction and ownership
The coop would not sell low -- it would devalue all the other units! The shareholder gets what's left after the maintennce, legal and all other fees. That's why, once you start to evict, they pay!
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 2:33 PM in response to eviction and ownership
ok so: the shareholder gets evicted, coop puts apt up for sale (hopefully at current market value), they sell it. owed money goes back to coop (plus fees, interest and whatever is owed), the remaining amount goes to shareholder who was evicted? correct?
Posted by: justme at April 1, 2008 4:27 PM in response to eviction and ownership
You really need to speak to a lawyer (and possibly an accountant), to make sure there aren't other implications to doing this. There are loads of examples of just plain wrong information populating this forum, don't roll the dice on something of this magnitude.
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 5:14 PM in response to eviction and ownership
youre gonna need an atty for this.
Theres not even any choice.
Posted by: slick at April 2, 2008 4:03 AM in response to eviction and ownership
Coop doesn't sell the apartment - it sells the shares. (The apartment is leased to the owner of the shares, and is not, in itself, sold.) And yes, the coop needs an attorney, because it doesn't right now own the shares, so it can't just transfer them without following correct legal process. And there's the matter of the lease to the existing owner, as well as the shares, to be dealt with. The coop is provided for in the proprietary lease and in the law. And yes, an owner who isn't in a state of complete paralysis will sell before the coop takes over. (Though paralysis happens - look at how many forclosed owners who aren't in a position to get it together to sell and pay off the bank, even when the house would sell for more the mortgage owed the bank.)
Posted by: guest at April 2, 2008 1:42 PM in response to eviction and ownership
This is pathetic. you nay sayers need to get a life. all you do is complain about everything. Park Slope is an amazing neighborhood with lots to offer.
i don't agree w/ the comparison of park slope to tribeca only because the prices in the city are so much higher than anywhere else. i would like to know the price ranges they used and why they chose to compare these two neighborhoods (i haven't read the article yet).
Posted by: justme at March 28, 2008 9:39 AM in response to Park Slope: The Canary in the Coalmine