Real Estate Transactions and Finance

February 1, 2013

The Legal Distinctions between Cooperative and Condominium Transactions in New York

apartment building.jpg New Yorkers who purchase an apartment typically buy what is known as a cooperative (“Co-op”) or condominium (“Condo”). There are important legal distinctions between a cooperative and a condominium that are notable during the purchase process and after the closing of the transaction. This blog post addresses these distinctions.

A cooperative is a corporation formed for the purposes of common ownership, where the New York State Attorney General has accepted the relevant Offering Plan for filing. An owner of a cooperative apartment owns a particular number of shares in the corporation and is also designated a proprietary lease whereby the shareholder may occupy a particular unit in the building. A condominium is also governed by an Offering Plan. However, a condominium is real property, wherein a unit owner obtains a Unit Deed identifying a particular unit to be occupied and a percentage of common interest (i.e. common areas of the building such as the lobby, hallways, roof, etc.) in the building that is owned.

Generally, cooperative boards strictly govern all resident activities, starting with the purchase of an apartment. A detailed application is usually required to be submitted to the board along with all references and financial data requested by the cooperative board, prior to attending a personal interview and obtaining board approval to the transaction. Once approved, the parties in the transaction will attend the closing at the office of the transfer agent for the cooperative to obtain the stock certificate and proprietary lease evidencing ownership of the unit. A purchaser cannot acquire the apartment without the approval and participation of the cooperative board and its transfer agent.

January 25, 2013

Boundary Issues and Their Influence on Real Estate Transactions in New York

By Weiss & Weiss

A purchaser of real estate in New York State typically has plenty to evaluate in determining whether to buy a property. Usually the evaluation is limited to the four corners enclosed by the property line. This blog post addresses the matters that are beyond the property line that should concern a buyer.

Fences can be seen enclosing many properties in New York State, but are often not within the legal property line. When a fence is erected, a property owner should have a staked survey prepared and the fence installed consistent with the property line as shown on said survey. Of course, many people do not know that surveying is a prudent means by which to install a fence or do not wish to incur this expense. As a result, many fences may be installed over another person’s property line. This may not be discovered until a neighbor attempts to sell his property and the neighbor’s buyer conducts a title search and survey, discovering that the selling party is out of possession as to a portion of his property. If the portion that is out of possession is less than six inches, most title companies will insure such an exception to coverage. If the out of possession portion is more than six inches, the selling party will need to request an affidavit from the encroaching neighbor stating that they know their fence encroaches beyond their property line and that they make no legal claim to the encroaching portion. This affidavit will allow the title company to insure as if the encroachment were less than six inches.

Should the out of possession issue not be discovered for some reason or the encroaching neighbor is not willing to sign such an affidavit, the encroaching neighbor may acquire the strip of land by operation of law under the legal principal known as adverse possession. It is not uncommon for the encroaching neighbor to request a fee to sign such an affidavit or to request an easement (right to use) the strip of land in exchange for signing any agreement. The parties to a transaction will need to determine whether it is worthwhile to agree to such terms in order for the transaction to proceed.

January 10, 2013

Legal Issues Relating to the Sale of Businesses and Professional Practices

By Weiss & Weiss

Our firm is often asked by clients to handle the purchase or sale of an ongoing business. This business may also be a professional practice, such as a pharmacy, or medical or dental office. There are many legal aspects of such a transaction, which will be discussed in this blog post.

Such transactions often involve the sale of real estate which is owned by the business being sold. For example, if a pharmacy is being sold, the building in which the pharmacy is located may be owned by the business in question. In such a situation, the sale of the real estate would be part of the transaction in which the actual business is also being sold. For tax purposes, the amount paid by the buyer should be allocated separately to both the real estate (if applicable) and business in question. A further allocation may be made with respect to fixtures and equipment that are part of the transferred items. Therefore, if the total purchase price is $600,000.00, $300,000 may be considered the price for the real estate, and $300,000.00 for the purchase of the actual business. We recommend that all parties consult their accounting professionals to determine the most favorable allocation for tax purposes.

The first legal issue relates to the legal structure of the business being purchased. If the business is an entity such as a corporation, professional corporation (P.C.) or limited liability company (LLC), the entity and its assets can be sold to another party. The first step in this process involves confirming that the corporation is in “good standing” in the State of New York. This involves checking to ensure that the entity has made all necessary filings and is current in paying its franchise taxes. A certificate of good standing should be obtained from the New York State Department of State. In addition, all corporate documentation, including the stock certificates, stock book, and corporate seal should be delivered at the time of the completion of the purchase.

January 3, 2013

New York Law Pertaining to Home Warranties

By Weiss & Weiss

Home purchasers in New York State often request warranties in connection with their home purchase. However, depending upon the type of property purchased, warranties on general construction and mechanical systems will not be obtainable. Without an express and separate warranty, any representations made in the contract of sale with respect to property condition will expire upon the delivery of the deed at closing. As such, the purchaser must generally discover all property defects prior to receiving the deed in order to expect a remedy from the seller. New York is a “caveat emptor” jurisdiction, meaning that buyers generally take title without a seller’s warranty as to condition and without recourse if the buyer discovers unacceptable conditions after the closing.

The most common warranty that is realistic for a New York real estate purchaser to obtain applies to new construction of a home to be used as the primary residence of the purchaser, who is also the first person to live in the home. In this instance, the warranty will have a monetary limit and will expire in stated periods of time depending on the type of item. A standard new home warranty will cover construction defects, flaws in the plumbing, electrical, heating, cooling and ventilation systems servicing the home and material defects. A new home warranty typically excludes appliances, which are covered by the manufacturer’s warranty. However, if the builder installed the appliances improperly, the purchaser can rightfully bring a claim under the new home warranty. A homeowner making a claim must follow the notice deadlines specified in the warranty and afford the builder an opportunity to inspect and correct the defect, as outlined in the warranty.

Most purchasers in New York acquire a home that is “used”, having already been lived in by someone else. The standard contract provision in New York states that all warranties and representations made by the seller expire upon the delivery of the deed, unless they are expressly stated to survive the delivery of the deed. This means that once the deed is delivered at the closing, the purchaser is accepting any conditions that may exist at the property. As such, the purchaser should thoroughly inspect the property immediately before the closing. Any condition that could have been discovered becomes the purchaser’s problem once the closing has concluded. In any event, a purchaser of a used home should receive the benefits of manufacturers’ warranties with respect to appliances.

December 7, 2012

Real Estate Legal Issues Relating to “Super-Storm” Sandy

By Weiss & Weiss

Uprooted Tree.jpg Recent extreme weather conditions in the New York metropolitan area have caused great hardship for many of its residents. We hope that those individuals and families who suffered damage or destruction of their residences are in the process of recovery. This blog post will discuss some of the legal issues which may arise from some of the results of the “super-storm.”

The first issue for many homeowners is when there is property damage which may be covered by their homeowner’s insurance. Most standard homeowner’s policies will pay to repair damage to a house and other physical structures located on the property caused by extreme weather conditions, with the exception of flood damage, which is covered under separate insurance policies that a homeowner may obtain. One example of this may be an uprooted tree which fell on a house and caused damage to a roof. If this occurs, the homeowner should contact their insurance agent and notify them immediately of the damage. The insurance company will then send an insurance adjuster to the property. The adjuster will survey the damage and will then estimate the amount it will take to repair the property. Repairs made before the insurance company has inspected the damages and approved of the cost to repair are unlikely to be reimbursed.

The homeowner may receive a check from their insurance company to pay for the repair work in question. However, where the property is mortgaged, the lender usually must be notified. The reason for this is that most loan documents contain clauses requiring the homeowner to keep the property in good repair and to involve the lender in the event of a casualty. If the homeowner receives a large sum of money from an insurance settlement, the lender has a vested interest in making sure these funds are applied to repair the property, and not spent by the homeowner for other purposes. Most lending documents therefore require that any insurance proceeds in excess of $10,000.00 be endorsed by both the homeowner and a representative of the lender. In practical terms, the check from the insurance company in excess of this amount will be issued to both the homeowner and the lending institution as co-payees. The homeowner must then obtain consent and a written endorsement on the check from their mortgage lender in order to deposit these funds, and must show that the funds are being used to repair the property which is the subject of the mortgage.

November 30, 2012

New York Residential Real Estate Contracts- Legal Issues

By Weiss & Weiss

Residential real estate contracts in New York State are prepared and negotiated by attorneys, rather than by other real estate professionals such as real estate brokers. This custom allows the opportunity for parties to real estate transactions to have professionally prepared contracts, serving as the road map for the entire transaction. There are particular provisions in a typical New York residential real estate contract of which our readers should be aware.

The most common conversation that we have with our real estate clients, whether they are the purchaser or the seller, pertains to the closing date. The standard contract clause will provide that the closing date will be “on or about “x” date”. This has been interpreted by New York courts to be a ” target=”_ date, not a date that either party must absolutely attend a closing and complete the transaction. We advise our clients not to schedule the movers, arrange for contractors to commence renovation projects or set up the closing of another transaction based upon an “on or about” closing date. New York legal custom generally allows thirty days after the target “on or about” closing date before one of the parties may legally expect to hold the closing.

At this point, it would then be appropriate for one of the attorneys to send a “time of the essence” closing date notice. A time of the essence notice must be in writing and will specify the time, date and location when the party sending the notice expects to perform its contractual obligation, deemed “law day”. New York Courts have held that time of the essence notices are to be sent on no less than thirty days notice. The party sending the notice needs to attend the closing on “law day” and to perform the closing, such as by having their client sign closing documents and having other parties such as title closers attend. In fact, it is common practice to have a court reporter attend the time of the essence closing to document a party’s failure to perform, so that a contract downpayment may be seized or another remedy for breach of contract employed.

August 9, 2012

Short Sales of Real Estate in New York

By Weiss & Weiss

The large number of foreclosed properties in New York State has caused a situation where banks may be more willing to compromise when a borrower cannot make their mortgage payments. If a lender proceeds with a foreclosure to its final conclusion, the lending institution will end up taking title to the property. Many lending institutions would rather not be “in the business” of owning, selling, and managing real estate. As a result, there are several alternatives to foreclosure which may be available. The first is a loan modification. As discussed in a prior blog post, courts in New York State are required to attempt to settle foreclosure actions in a separate foreclosure part.

Another alternative is a short sale. A short sale happens when the mortgage balance exceeds the current value of the property. This is an increasingly more common situation in our times, as lenders in the past were overly generous in issuing loans on properties, including second mortgages. Overly optimistic appraisals and credit reports were the foundation of said loans. Combined with a recent decline in real estate values, the result is that many homeowners find themselves unable to pay their mortgage, and also find that the total debt on their property may exceed the current fair market value of the property.

When this occurs, the borrower may ask the lender to allow a “short sale” on the property. A short sale is when a lender allows the property to be sold for less than the amount due on the mortgage, and then forgives the rest of the debt on the property after the sale. The main reason that this may be an acceptable alternative for a homeowner is that they remain personally liable on the Note and Mortgage, even after foreclosure and sale of the property. A lender may seek a deficiency judgment against the borrower if the property is auctioned for less than the amount owed by the borrower. This can result in a large judgment entered against the borrower, and could result in the borrower having their personal credit damaged, or being forced to file for personal bankruptcy.

August 2, 2012

A New York Bidder’s Expectations Concerning the Property Auction Process

By Weiss & Weiss

Those who bid at property auctions in New York are confronted with many potential issues. Auction properties are often attactive to first-time homeowners and to investors because they are perceived as being less expensive than comparable properties. If the property is residential, the bidding process differs based upon whether the property is a single-family house, a condominium unit or a cooperative unit. The type of property, whether it is commercial or residential, may have implications for tenants already in occupancy and whether such tenants may have statutory occupancy rights.

The auction process for a single-family home is similar to the auction process for a condominium unit, because both types of property are real property. The major difference is that common charges are levied by the Board of Managers of a condominium, allowing for the filing and foreclosure of a lien for unpaid common charges by the condominium Board. However, once the matter is in foreclosure, it is supervised and directed by a Court, meaning that same is litigated and requires a judgment of foreclosure issued by a judge before proceeding to auction. In a condominium, mortgage balances take priority over unpaid common charges. As such, in many cases, an auction bidder in an auction for unpaid common charges will likely be taking the unit subject to the outstanding mortgage, requiring the successful bidder to pay mortgage arrears and keep the mortgage current to avoid foreclosure.

Cooperative bidders will experience an auction process that is non-judicial (not supervised or litigated in the Court) unless a party requests that a Court issue an injunction to prevent or delay the auction. Since cooperative maintenance charges take priority over a share loan, it is possible for an auction bidder to obtain the unit for only the amount of the maintenance arrears and sever the security interest of the lender, provided that the auction is properly noticed. Our readers should note that this is an unlikely scenario because most lenders will choose to cure a maintenance default by paying it themselves, because a cooperative unit is likely to be more valuable than the maintenance arrears due to the cooperative.

July 26, 2012

Fair Housing in Westchester County, New York

By Weiss & Weiss

A recent article in the Journal News discusses the latest developments in the Westchester County, New York fair housing settlement. For those who are unfamiliar with the situation, a lawsuit was brought by a public interest group against Westchester County, alleging housing discrimination. In order to settle the lawsuit, then-County executive Andrew Spano agreed to build at least 750 units of “affordable housing” in Westchester. This blog post will discuss the ramifications of the settlement, as well as the legal issues associated with the sale and resale of affordable housing.

Long-time Westchester residents will recall that in 1980, a similar case was brought against the City of Yonkers, also alleging discrimination in housing. While it is beyond the scope of this post to address the merits of this case (as well as the case against Westchester), the legal issues become important for potential buyers and sellers of property in Westchester. In the Yonkers case, Judge Leonard Sand ruled that Yonkers had discriminated against minorities and ordered the city to provide low-income housing in all areas of Yonkers for minority applicants.

Of course, implementation of such a remedy is far from simple, and the Yonkers case involved many years of litigation over the issue of whether the city was in compliance with Judge Sand’s directives. Unfortunately, the same issues now seem be arising in the Westchester County lawsuit. Once a municipality enters into a settlement of a discrimination lawsuit, as Mr. Spano did on behalf of the residents of Westchester County, there may be no end to judicial enforcement of a remedy. It seems unlikely that a Court will ever reach a finding that no further discrimination exists and end its supervision of the construction of affordable housing.

July 12, 2012

Mortgage Disclosure Regulations Promulgated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

By Weiss & Weiss

Our readers should be aware that the financial crisis has spawned at least one new government agency. In this post, we address the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), whose central mission is “to make markets for consumer financial products and services work for Americans– whether they are applying for a mortgage, choosing among credit cards, or using any number of other consumer financial products.” With respect to mortgages, the CFPB has recently promulgated proposed regulations pertaining to mortgage disclosure.

Many people believe that the financial crisis and resulting recession were caused by borrowers entering mortgages that they did not understand and becoming financially overwhelmed as a result. The CFPB has recently proposed regulations intended to prevent this problem in the future. Revisions to the Good Faith Estimate document and the preliminary Truth-in-Lending Disclosure form figure prominently in the new regulations, so that borrowers understand the loan terms and the actual cost. For instance, the new document that combines the purposes served by the Good Faith Estimate and the preliminary Truth-in-Lending Disclosure form, now entitled the Loan Estimate, is to be presented within three business days of the mortgage application and purports to be easier to understand than similar documents presented in the past.

Further, another document, entitled the Closing Disclosure, to be presented to the borrower three business days before closing, is intended to replace the form known as the HUD-1 and the revised Truth-in-Lending Disclosure form. The Closing Disclosure is meant to prevent a borrower from being surprised by unexpected closing costs and the amount of cash needed to close. While most consumer mortgages are covered by the regulations proposed by the CFPB, common mortgage transactions such as home-equity lines of credit and reverse mortgages are excluded.