New York Real Estate Lawyers Blog

February 15, 2013

Attaching Strings to a Gift

A recent article in the New York Times addresses the interesting question of whether a testator (a person who has made a will) can “attach strings” to a bequest (a gift by will of personal property). Wealthy philanthropists have left collections of artwork to museums and have specified conditions on the bequest, such as all works of art need to be displayed together or never sold. When a donor leaves such property in a will and the intent of the bequest is no longer being met, the museum or other institution to which the donation was made cannot request that the donor change the conditions or request a clarification of the donor’s intent, because the donor is deceased. In some cases, institutions have sought Court intervention to address donor intent and request a change in conditions so that donor’s intent is achieved.

The most well-known case in recent years involves the Barnes Foundation. Dr. Albert Barnes possessed a comprehensive collection of post-impressionist and early modern artwork. He specified the specific manner in which the artwork was to be displayed and that it was to be displayed together in a building owned by the foundation in suburban Philadelphia. The foundation was to conduct educational programs and never move from its location. Over time, the foundation experienced financial problems that jeopardized its very survival. In order to maintain the institution at all, the Attorney General and Governor brought suit to request an order permitting the foundation to move from suburban Merion to downtown Philadelphia. The Court agreed that relocating the foundation was necessary to preserve the foundation.

There are many situations where an arts institution has requested the Court’s intervention in revising the terms of a bequest in a will or a gift in a charitable trust. The Attorney General, as the supervisor of charitable organizations, may also participate or lead such lawsuits. The reasons behind requests to reform the conditions of a bequest could be based on financial considerations. Perhaps the institution needs to sell the artwork to raise funds in order to avert bankruptcy, or the artwork is later deemed not to be attributed to the artist as assumed by the donor.

February 8, 2013

Alex Rodriguez, the Yankees, and Employment Contract Law

By Weiss & Weiss

Recently, there have been several news stories regarding Yankees’ superstar Alex Rodriguez and his contract. For those unfamiliar with the situation, Rodriguez, who has admitted using performance-enhancing drugs during his tenure with his former team, has been linked to a Florida company that allegedly supplied additional performance-enhancing substances in recent years. Rodriguez has denied these allegations.

The situation has raised many issues regarding Rodriguez’s contract with the Yankees. After the 2007 regular season, Rodriguez used a clause in his contract to opt out of his existing contract. After becoming a free agent, he re-signed with the Yankees for ten years for a total of 275 million dollars, which runs through the 2017 season.

During the last few seasons, Rodriguez has seen his productivity and durability decline, which is part of the normal aging process for a professional athlete. However, frustrated fans are asking whether the recent accusations regarding performance-enhancing drugs may be used as grounds to void the contract and release Rodriguez without the Yankees having any further financial obligations. There are several legal issues which must be addressed to answer this question fairly.

February 1, 2013

The Legal Distinctions between Cooperative and Condominium Transactions in New York

By Weiss & Weiss

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 18, 2013

Ghosts

By Weiss & Weiss

Prevailing law in New York State favors the making of a Last Will and Testament. The person making the Will (called the testator) may leave his property to any person that he chooses. However, those who would inherit if the testator did not make a Will, known as intestacy, have the right to legal notice when the Will is eventually offered for probate. New York notice requirements allow the persons who would be notified (called distributees) the opportunity to contest the Will being offered for probate if they choose. If their contest is successful, the distributees may have the Will overturned, resulting in intestacy, as if there were no Will, or negotiate a settlement from the Estate in order to pragmatically dispose of the contest. This process is easy to imagine if the person offering the Will for probate knows who to contact in order to deliver the legal notice that the Will is being offered for probate. This post will discuss how “ghosts” are treated under New York law.

A ghost is a term describing a person who we think could or has existed, but we do not know their name or whereabouts. Examples of ghosts are as follows. The testator had a brother with whom she became estranged. As a result, no one knows if the brother is alive or where he may live. While no one may expect the testator to leave her estate to her long lost brother, instead of to her best friend, the Court will still require efforts to locate the brother before admitting the Will to probate. Another common example is when an elderly testator (who was an only child) never married and left no children or grandchildren. This testator’s distributees could be first cousins or first cousins once removed. The Court will require efforts to locate these persons.

The ghost, having an interest in the proceeding, has the right to appear in Court on the return date of the Citation on which it is named. Since the ghost may not actually exist or may be unable to be found, the Court will appoint an independent attorney, known as a Guardian ad Litem, to represent the interest of the ghost. The Citation must be advertised in a newspaper as identified by the Court. Sometimes the Court selects a newspaper that offers the most competitive rates for the Estate, while in other cases the Court may select a newspaper of ethnic interest if the ghost may be of a specific ethnicity. After the Court appearance marking the return date of the Citation, the Guardian ad Litem will issue a written report as to whether admitting the Will to probate is recommended.

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.

November 13, 2012

Legal Defenses to Foreclosure Actions in New York State

By Weiss & Weiss

Our firm is often retained to defend, as well as prosecute, foreclosure actions in New York State. When we are representing the defendant in a commercial or residential foreclosure action, we examine many legal issues to determine whether the action can be successfully defended in Court. Often, a defendant is simply seeking a delay in the lawsuit to enable it to attempt to refinance the property and pay off the mortgage, or to negotiate with the lender during the course of the litigation for more favorable loan terms.

In several cases litigated by our firm, the lender’s attorney used a basic “foreclosure form” lawsuit for the complaint against our client. However, the basic facts as alleged in the lawsuit may not match the actual facts of the individual case. Many foreclosure specialty firms operate on a volume basis, and there is not always complete and thorough review of the contents of the pleadings. In those situations, we have been able to have the lawsuit dismissed or delayed, allowing our clients time to obtain additional funding for the property or to remain as occupants of the property.

Another important defense available to a potential foreclosure defendant involves the legal owner of the mortgage and note at issue. Many loans are sold from the original lender to a servicing company. The servicing company may also sell the loan to another company during the loan period in question. By the time there is an alleged default, the borrower may be dealing with a different company than the original lender.