Real Estate Litigation

May 19, 2016

Who’s in Charge? Disputes over Control of Religious Institutions

Recently in the news is a story relating to control over Touro Synagogue, located in Newport, Rhode Island. The Touro Synagogue was built prior to the Revolutionary War and is one of the oldest congregations in the United States. As with many older institutions, over the centuries, the original congregation and their descendants eventually moved from the area in question. Many of these individuals settled in New York, and formed a new congregation, named Shearith Israel. The original congregation in Rhode Island dwindled and even fell dormant for a period of time.

According to the Court records, there is a dispute between the current congregation of Touro Synagogue, now named Jeshuat Israel, and the New York congregation, Shearith Israel, over who was the rightful owner of the Touro Synagogue, and who has the right to make decisions such as the sale of ornaments in order to raise funds.

Our firm has handled similar cases involving control over religious institutions. Many churches and synagogues experience changing congregations and conditions over a long period of time. Depending on the location of the institution, members may move from the area, causing a sharp decrease in active membership. At that point, the institution must decide whether to continue in its present location, or consider moving to another part of the New York where membership may increase. Moving an institution will usually involve the sale of the current location. Such a sale must be approved by the Board of Trustees or other governing body of the institution in question. Prior blog posts have discussed the handling of legal disputes relating to control over a religious corporation.

March 17, 2016

Fraudulent Conveyances of Real Estate in New York

By Weiss & Weiss

Occasionally, our clients inquire as to whether a real estate transaction could be considered a fraudulent conveyance. This situation can occur when an individual or entity transfers property due to a judgment or pending judgment, in an attempt to evade creditors. In New York, a judgment is a lien on real property for a period of ten years. After ten years, the creditor can move to have the lien extended for an additional ten years. Therefore, those who own real estate may have an incentive to transfer such property to prevent a lien from being placed on it, possibly for a twenty-year period.

New York Debtor and Creditor Law, Article 10, is the state law governing fraudulent transfers. It states that, first, when any defendant transfers property in an attempt to evade a judgment creditor, that transfer is considered fraudulent and may be rescinded in a court action. An important consideration in this evaluation is whether the transfer is made for consideration, that is, whether the person transferring the property received value in exchange for the transfer.

Let’s give a hypothetical situation to help clarify the law. A husband and wife own a house jointly. The husband alone is sued individually for a business debt, and a judgment is obtained against him. Before the judgment is entered by the Court, the husband transfers his one-half interest in his house to his wife, so that the house is solely in his wife’s name. The husband receives no compensation for this transfer.

March 10, 2016

Preserving Real Estate Assets for the Defaulting New York Homeowner

By Weiss & Weiss

It is not unusual for some of our clients to be presented with the following scenario. An owner of a single family house or apartment falls behind on his mortgage and his lender commences a foreclosure proceeding while a sale is pending. In an apartment scenario, the cooperative board pursues a maintenance default matter while a cooperative unit owner is actively attempting to sell the unit. These are not situations where a short sale is sought. Rather, significant equity exists. The anticipated sales proceeds will allow for the full payment of the balance of the mortgage loan or maintenance arrears due to the cooperative.

Another common component of these situations is that the lender or cooperative board is aggressively pursuing their claim, jeopardizing the owner’s ownership of the asset. For instance, if the lender forecloses on the mortgage, the homeowner will lose title to the property and have nothing to sell. If the cooperative default goes to its final conclusion, an auction of the unit (and eviction of the occupant) , the unit owner will likewise lose her ownership interest. These results should be avoided when the closing proceeds are more than sufficient to pay any outstanding amounts due. The goal of the attorney representing the homeowner is to encourage the lender or the cooperative board to delay its proceeding pending the sale of the property , at which time the lender or the cooperative will be paid in full for the monies owed. When a homeowner falls behind in payments due, he may claim to a creditor that he is trying to sell the home in an effort to stall proceedings. While it may be true that the homeowner is trying to sell the home, the following suggestions may make such a claim more credible to the creditor and convince them to delay the proceedings.

First, it is helpful to have a skilled attorney present this information to the creditor. Second, for sale by owner scenerios should not be used. Having a licensed real estate agent involved who has an active listing that can be shown to the creditor is convincing evidence that the home is actively for sale. Third, if there is a signed contract of sale with downpayment monies on deposit and also a loan commitment letter from the purchaser to deliver to the lender or cooperative’s attorney, such documents will show that the means to pay the past due balance will be imminently available. A new loan may be sought by the homeowner as another means to resolve the default. If these strategies are not effective, our attorneys may file an Order to Show Cause with the applicable Court, seeking a temporary restraining order curtailing the creditor’s right to pursue the activity until the sale occurs.

February 25, 2016

Mortgage Modifications in New York State

By Weiss & Weiss

Our firm is often called on to assist homeowners whose properties may be in foreclosure. This can occur when a person falls behind in their mortgage payments to a bank or other lending institution. Because of the high volume of such foreclosures in New York State over the past several years, additional safeguards have been added to the judicial process to protect people from losing their primary residence in a foreclosure case.

Prior blog posts have explained how New York State requires a mandatory settlement conference in most residential foreclosure matters. The main exceptions are cases involving a reverse mortgage, or situations in which the homeowner does not reside at the property being foreclosed, such as a second home or vacation house. Our attorneys will attend settlement conferences in Court to attempt to resolve outstanding foreclosures. Court referees, who meet with the parties in an attempt to resolve these cases, encourage lending institutions to offer mortgage modifications. The first step in the process is that the borrower must provide complete financial information to the lender (or, in most cases, their attorneys). This information usually consists of a standard Request for Mortgage Modification Form (RMA), copies of state and federal tax returns for the last several years, a hardship letter from the borrower explaining why they fell behind on their mortgage, proof of income, bank statements, and other financial records as the lender may request.

Once this information is provided, the lending institution will consider whether a modification is possible. Based on the borrower’s income and assets, as well as the value of the property in question, as well as the mortgage amount, the lender may offer a trial modification. The trial modification may reduce the interest rate on the original mortgage, and may also shift the past due payments to the end of the loan term, allowing a delinquent borrower to resume payments and have the property removed from the foreclosure process. In certain instances, the lender may even reduce the actual amount of principal owed on the mortgage.

January 22, 2016

Unlivable Conditions in New York Coops

By Weiss & Weiss

Many legal issues arise in New York relating to rental apartments. Disputes between landlords and tenants are extremely common, and have been discussed in many posts on this blog. Extremely prevalent are situations in which the living conditions of the apartment have deteriorated to the point where the apartment may not be suitable for an individual or family to reside at the premises.

When this occurs, legally, it is considered a breach of the “warranty of habitability.” Whether or not it is explicitly stated in a lease or other document, every dwelling place has an implied warranty of habitability, meaning that the responsible party must insure that the space is livable. Certain conditions which may cause an apartment to be unlivable are lack of heat (especially during the winter), water leaks causing flooding conditions, roaches and other vermin, and excessive noise. This is not an exclusive list, and other conditions may arise which could cause a landlord to be in breach of the warranty of habitability.

However, a question arises when the apartment in question is a cooperative unit. In such situations, the owner of the shares allocated to the apartment unit is usually the same person residing at the premises. In essence, they are both landlord and tenant. What happens legally when such a unit has severe problems which cause them to be unfit for human habitation? Our firm has been consulted by many clients in such situations. The first issue to be resolved is the responsible party for the conditions. Every cooperative has a proprietary lease, which is a document that defines whether the cooperative corporation or the unit owner is responsible to correct certain conditions. For example, a cooperative apartment may have windows which have deteriorated to the point that they no longer seal and keep cold air out of the apartment. The proprietary lease needs to be examined to determine whether the cooperative corporation is responsible for replacing such windows. Other conditions, such as excessive noise, or poor sanitary conditions at the building, may also be the responsibility of the cooperative corporation, rather than the individual owner.

January 7, 2016

Legal Issues Relating to Private House Rentals in New York

By Weiss & Weiss

Many of our firm’s clients own private houses in Westchester County, in Brooklyn (Kings County), the Bronx, and Queens County. These may be one or two family houses, and many of these houses are part of the rental market, rather than owner-occupied. Renting a private house involves many legal issues that may not occur in an apartment rental. These issues will the subject of this blog post.

The first issue relates to a written lease. Many apartment rentals use a standard form lease (which may be a rent-regulated form lease), or no lease at all. It is important when renting a private house to have a qualified attorney prepare a written lease specific to the property to be reviewed and executed by the tenant. The reason for this is that while there are standard Court practices for apartment rentals (particularly if the apartment is rent-regulated) house rentals are more specific and unique. Therefore, it is important for anyone renting a house to have a lease which will incorporate the specific requirements for the rental, as there are fewer standard terms. Some of the issues to look at are the length of the lease term, whether the lease can be renewed after it expires (as opposed to rent-regulated apartments, in which a renewal right already exists), the amount of the security deposit, responsibility for maintaining the property, and other terms which are specific to the house being rented.

For example, many houses have older appliances. The written lease needs to state who is responsible for maintaining the appliances, and who will incur the expense of replacing a major appliance which no longer works. Further, a landlord may specify who needs to have the appliance serviced and the allocation of repair expenses should be negotiated. Many landlord-tenant disputes in private house rentals relate to the condition of the appliances, as well as heat and air conditioning systems. The lease should specifically delineate each party’s rights and responsibilities for these conditions.

December 3, 2015

Landlord-Tenant Eviction Action in New York – Holdover or Non-Payment?

By Weiss & Weiss

Our firm frequently represents both landlords and tenants in eviction actions. Unlike many law firms who specialize in only representing landlords or only defending tenants, we recognize that valid legal issues and valid defenses may exist for both the party owning a given property and the party who may be renting the property. This blog post will discuss the basics of an eviction action, and may be viewed from the perspective of either a landlord or a tenant.

Eviction cases in New York State are classified as either holdover actions or non-payment actions. They cannot be both. When the landlord (who is usually called the “petitioner”) decides to file a petition for eviction in the appropriate court, the landlord’s attorney must decide whether the case is a non-payment action, or a holdover action.

A non-payment action is an action for eviction based on the tenant’s failure to pay rent as due. The rent due may be based on a written lease, or simply an oral agreement between the landlord and the tenant. For example, a tenant enters into a lease to rent a house for $6,000.00 per month. The tenant then does not make the rent payments as due. Our attorneys will usually advise the landlord not to proceed with a non-payment action until several months’ rent has accrued. The reason for this is that a tenant may always end a non-payment action by making payment. Once any and all rental arrears are paid by the defaulting tenant, the non-payment action will be dismissed by the Court and the tenancy will continue.

November 19, 2015

What’s in a Name? Name Change Petitions in New York State

By Weiss & Weiss

Our firm often receives inquiries from individuals who desire to legally change their name. People may desire to change their name for many reasons. Some want to avoid a name which may be linked to celebrities or individuals with unsavory or even criminal histories. Others may need their name legally changed so that it matches other legal documentation that they may have, such as a passport. Whatever the reason, this post will discuss the legal requirements required for name changes in New York State.

The first step in legally changing one’s name is to file a Petition in the Supreme Court in the county in which the individual currently resides. There are legal requirements regarding the contents of the Petition, including whether the individual has ever been convicted of a crime, judgments against the individual, pending litigation involving the individual, and information regarding child support and spousal support obligations. The reason that this information is required is that a person may attempt to evade legal obligations, such as judgments or child support, by changing their name. In order to prevent this, a name change Petition will not be accepted unless all information regarding such outstanding legal obligations is provided.

The Petition also has to provide the reason for the name change application. As discussed above, there are many valid reasons for such application. Once the Petition is complete, it is filed with the appropriate Court. The Court will also require a certified copy of the applicant’s birth certificate, showing the original name.

November 12, 2015

The Online Conduct of Cooperative and Condominium Disputes

By Weiss & Weiss

With the prevalent use of the internet, grievances against cooperative and condominium boards can spread like wildfire. The means used may be standard e-mail forwarded to all unit owners, a specifically developed Facebook or Google chat page, a publically accessible website, or another type of private intranet system. The New York Times recently published an article concerning the airing of disagreements online with an audience of all unit owners and the implications. In the past, if a neighbor had a complaint, she would approach one of the board members individually and directly, so that all unit owners would not be aware of the grievance. As an alternative, it is almost expected that a unit owner will raise concerns loudly and perhaps not so politely during the annual meeting. Such concerns will be addressed in front of all unit owners present.

Now it is not uncommon for unit owners to have a day-to-day online community, allowing for constant communication of all matters. Online discussions may concern such matters as whether a neighbor is willing to watch a pet while someone is away, whether someone wants to buy unneeded furniture or more serious matters concerning how the building is being run. The board may be publically attacked for building conditions or for the manner in which a financial transaction was handled. Modern online communities make it almost too easy for unhappy unit owners to gather strength. Some proponents argue that such an online community encourages transparency of the board. The board is continually required to state and justify their actions. Even though the board is legally required to be responsive to all unit owners and must follow the business judgment rule , the current expectation that every action of the board should be known and debated among all unit owners is likely to diminish the authority of a current board.

With the potential reduced authority of a board, the takeover of a board is a potential concern. Opponents of such online communities argue that such communities are developed merely for the purpose of such a takeover. Using the online method as an easily disseminated platform, it is easier than ever for dissident groups to develop allies and arrange for other unit owners to elect them to the board. Once opinions are readily shared, the slate of dissident candidates likewise develops more easily than in the past.

November 5, 2015

Arbitration as an Option to Resolve Legal Disputes in New York

By Weiss & Weiss

A recent series of articles in the New York Times discusses the growing prevalence of arbitration in resolving legal disputes. This blog has previously discussed arbitration proceedings in the context of New York Yankees slugger Alex Rodriguez (hereinafter “A-Rod”), discussing his attempt to reverse an arbitration ruling which upheld his long suspension. As baseball fans are aware, A-Rod was unsuccessful in having his suspension overturned, and ended up sitting out the entire 2014 season, and returned for the 2015 season, leading the Yankees in home runs.

A-Rod aside, the issue to be discussed is whether arbitration may be a better vehicle for dispute resolution than the traditional court system. In arbitration, parties agree to submit a dispute to a neutral, third party arbitrator, rather than to the court system. The first issue is the arbitrator to be utilized. Many contracts will state that the dispute should be submitted to a local branch of the American Arbitration Association (AAA). The AAA will generally supply a list of arbitrators with expertise in the area of the dispute, and the parties are allowed to rule out any arbitrators who may have a conflict of interest.

Other agreements may allow the dispute to be submitted to a religious tribunal, such as a Beth Din. This usually occurs when the disputing parties are members of the same religious group and prefer than their dispute be heard by members of their group, rather than in the Court system. Of course, if one of the disputants is not a member of the group, they may feel that they are at a disadvantage when the dispute is heard. Another aspect is that a religious arbitrator may apply religious doctrine and scripture, rather than civil law, in making their decision.