Settlement in Dispute Over a Condo's Size
The Times follows up on a story about a feud that began four years ago, when buyers who went into contract for a unit at 110 Livingston Street claimed that its living area was smaller than had been advertised. The result of this grudge match: “[Buyer] Mr. Bhandari, who is a lawyer, had asked for…
The Times follows up on a story about a feud that began four years ago, when buyers who went into contract for a unit at 110 Livingston Street claimed that its living area was smaller than had been advertised. The result of this grudge match: “[Buyer] Mr. Bhandari, who is a lawyer, had asked for a discount at closing, but the developer, Two Trees Management, declined, saying that according to the purchase contract, Mr. Bhandari’s only option if he disputed the measurements was to back out and get his deposit back. Both sides were so unwilling to compromise that they fought until March 23, the day the case was scheduled for jury selection. That day they agreed that Two Trees would return the Bhandaris’ deposit with interest, or $81,077, and pay the couple an additional $150,000 to terminate the contract. In return, the Bhandaris promised not to buy or rent in a Two Trees building for four years.” Bhandari also walked away from Two Trees’ offer of $20,000 to not disclose the terms of the settlement.
Suit Over 109 Square Feet Ends in a $150,000 Settlement [NY Times]
That is why I’d like to see the AG step more forcefully on fraudulent activity: it impedes commerce when there is no trust, and how could there be trust when brokers or developers have complete immunity for misrepresentations?
If someone stole a pack of beer (value $100,000 through misrepresentations, dozens of times, and there is no arrest, no DAs or criminal pursuits. Why is that?
ISNH, yes, I agree with you. To pay for space that isn’t there, yes, really does suck, and isn’t fair. So yes, total agreement there.
maly, I also understand what you mean, but to buy something without actually seeing the space, that just doesn’t seem like a great idea. I know people do it, but mmmmmmmm, I shake my head on that.
I have no sympathy for the developer here but it’s hard for me to have much sympathy for Bhandari as a victim either. He’s an attorney, yet doesn’t think to measure the apartment size until after he’s signed a contract that has an explicit clause mentioning what to do in the event of a dispute over the apartment size?
The original NY Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/12/nyregion/12apartment.html?_r=2) also noted that the developer pointed out that the offering plans “included a caveat that the square footage shown is approximate, based on construction drawings, measured from points behind the boundary walls, and exceed the usable floor area.†Did he read that?
To the extent that this lawsuit prevents buyers from being defrauded in the future, I’m obviously all for it. But was he an innocent dupe? I can’t believe it.
Maly, you raise an interesting point. That being the case, it would seem that all developers are gonna have to watch their bums with conversions wrt pre-construction sales. Yowza!
Except they signed the contract on specs during the conversion, so they had no way to ascertain the actual size until the apartment was finished. That 1,143 is just for maintenance purposes (dividing the gross sf between owners.) It wasn’t the actual size of their apartment. The actual size was the problem.
Stargazer, I get your point and it’s well taken, but think about it in terms of price per square foot. May seem as if you are getting a good deal or even just paying a price on par with comparable units in nearby developments, but then to find out that space isn’t really there, that essentially just drove up your ppsf. Kinda sucks, no?
How does he see the stars with his head so far up his nether regions?
Whats the difference what the size is listed as, you either like the space and pay for it, or you don’t like the space and move on.
Would you like the space better if it says 1180 sq ft rather than if it says 400 sq ft, either way, you see what the apartment looks like, and either you like it or you don’t.
Good for him. And good for him for having the balls to pursue the issue. There’s no reason for trying to defraud buyers- only stupidity on the part of the broker/developer because they will get caught out. How do they not think about that?