Rent Control Tenant
we inherited a rent control tenant . He wrote a letter stating he would move out when his Mother died and he renounced all claims to the apt. UNFORTUNATELY, we were soft hearted fools and let him stay in the apt after his Mother died because he was a mess. That was 1.5 years ago….
we inherited a rent control tenant . He wrote a letter stating he would move out when his Mother died and he renounced all claims to the apt. UNFORTUNATELY, we were soft hearted fools and let him stay in the apt after his Mother died because he was a mess. That was 1.5 years ago. Now we have 2 boys that have graduated from college and need an apt. Can we claim it for personal use? HERE is the obstacle: The house is owned by a trust for the boys they do not get the properties and monies from trust for another 8 years. We really would love to give the boys their own apt with them paying rent but being able to pay off their student loans.
bikerboynycny, thanks for the thoughtful response.
“By landl0rd on September 21, 2010 3:00 PM
@ starfish1948: the OP must have paid less for the property because of the Rent Control Tenant. He gambled …”
OP said “we inherited a rent control tenant…The house is owned by a trust” so it sounds like OP’s family may have inherited the house as well as the tenant, in which case the “you gambled and lost” snarkiness isn’t appropriate.
Sounds like a lawyer is needed (there’s both RC LL-tenant issues and trust issues in play). Might be worth offering the tenant a buyout – could start with offering to pay moving expenses and broker fee his next apartment, which would be similar to several hours of attorney fees.
Perception is everything in Housing Court and with NYSDHCR. You, as the owner, are percieved as making Darth Vader look like sweetness and light. You need to present yourself as a cross between Gahndi and Mother Theresa, only better.
Quite honestly, I recall that the path with rent controlled tenants for owner occupancy these days includes tests like “immediate and compelling necessity” and the twenty year rule, so you may be only contributing to your lawyer’s retirement fund.
To negotiate with any tenant, esp. one that does have any need to do so, you need to understand them and what they need if you want to have a chance.
I think the term “unhappy” here is perhaps a polite term for “irrational” in the sense that they are difficult to make a deal with.
I do think it is is possible to owner occupy even a rent control apartment, but only if the tenant is not over 62, disabled, or has lived there for less than 20 years. Not sure about the trust ownership question.
thanks all but why digress to “is the tenant happy or not?” he has a 2 bedroom for 640 a month and doesn’t work ….. i will call a lawyer
Um, could be wrong but I think the payment of rent provides certain rights to folks in every part of the country.
short version – In my relatively small sample of UWS walkups that I have known, these are people who live in generally inadequate housing for a very long time, are very resistant to change and are very fearful of anything changing. Forgetting sucession cases, you haven’t moved since 1971 at the latest to be rent controlled and in most sucession cases, you never moved out of the place of your birth. The apartment sometimes becomes the only fixed point in a life full of rather dramatic upheavel, either real or imagined. I’ve been through several guardian ad litiem procedures with people in this category spare everyone the sometimes sad stories where society has failed an idividual and has transfered that responsibility either to distant relatives, unrelated neighbors or property owners.
“A lot of these folks are very unhappy with life in general.”
bikerboynycny, care to elaborate? Why do you think that is? (Sincere question.)
@ starfish1948: the OP must have paid less for the property because of the Rent Control Tenant. He gambled that things would have gone one way. Now it looks like things didn’t go as hoped and he might have to pay the price of the bad gable. OP also gambled that making the kids owners would have saved them money avoiding transfer taxes at a later date. Again, that was a gamble and it might not turn out to be a good one. This has nothing to do with the “politicians”. This is about the wisdom of the investment made by the OP when purchased the building.