Co-Purchaser vs. Guarantor
I am trying to sell my co-op apt right now and have lined up a buyer. The buyer does not make enough income on his own qualify for the apartment, but his father, a rich dude, is willing be a co-purchaser. However, I have just been told by my coop board that they frown upon…
I am trying to sell my co-op apt right now and have lined up a buyer. The buyer does not make enough income on his own qualify for the apartment, but his father, a rich dude, is willing be a co-purchaser. However, I have just been told by my coop board that they frown upon co-purchaser and will be more inclined if it is a guarantor situation. I am thoroughly confused now, maybe someone can provide some much needed clarification?
Why is guarantor more desirable than a co-purchaser? From a finance perspective, I would thought the co-op would prefer to have the rich dude’s name on the property.
Since the buyer does not make enough money on his own to qualify for a loan, I am not sure that a guarantee from the father would do any good from a lender’s perspective.
Can someone educate me? Thanks.
var, if the buyer is willing to put 1 – 2 years maintenance in an escrow account that might help, is what we did with guarantors/co-purchasers.
It’s starting to make sense. Babs, what you said about harder to evcit two parties (one of whom does not occupy the apartment) may be the key as to why guarantor is preferred over co-purchaser.
Is there anything I can do to convince to board to accept the buyer? I am stuck in a bad place and really need to sell ASAP.
quote:
Trust fund bohemians are just as good as anybody else.
that is certifiably WRONG and patently UNTRUE.
also, not all money is the same. trust fund money is dirty money, it’s no different than drug dealer and prostitution money, in fact it’s worse. why would you want to own in a building with that kind of riff-raff?
*rob*
Plenty of people have more than one name on a coop. What happens if someone dies? it is easy to remove one name on the document.
Tenants with right of survivorship, tenants in common, etc.
Somebody is being misinformed.
What is important is whether the board likes you or not. The names of ownership is irrelevent.
it is your personal choice.
Trust funds if substantial income is derived should please the board. It is easy for the potential coop owner to budget his money and pay on time. The monthly income of the trust might stay the same.
So whats the problem?
Trust fund bohemians are just as good as anybody else.
Money is money!
If only the kid is a shareholder it’s much easier to get him evicted (for breaking house rules, for example) than if the co-op had to go against both him and daddy. If both parties are on the stock and lease the place would be considered owner-occuppied; what can’t happen in a co-op (unlike a condo) would be having daddy the sole owner — that would reduce the owner-occupancy %.
It is exactly as traditional mod said. Nothing else to it. The bank that has the mortgage on the building looks at owner occupancy rates when it is time to refi
co-op boards favorite thing in the world to do is frown upon things. basically anything really. it’s what they do best. they are the same kind of people who would repeatly run for class president and lose.
*rob*
Thanks. I got the spoiled brat bit, however, wouldn’t it be the same spoiled brat in a guarantor situation? Why is a guarantor more desirable? I would have thought the co-op would frown upon both type of arrangements if they want to keep out the trust fund babies.
i agree with andrews. you do not want to spoiled trust fund brats in your building. they make the worst neighbors.
*rob*