LIEB BLOG

Legal Analysts

Wednesday, May 09, 2012

Why Should the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act and Debt Cancellation NOT be extended past 2012?


In short, I don’t know. According to a study released by CNN.COM in early March, the number of homeowners who owe more on their mortgage(s) than their properties are worth – more commonly referred to as being “underwater” - increased by 3.7% during the last three (3) months of 2011. My contention is that this trend will continue, and the Act provides relief for, among others, homeowners who must resort to short-sales in order to get out from under this mess. Consequently, these homeowners who sell their properties for less than what they owe on their mortgage(s) are saddled with substantial tax ramifications unless they fall under one of the exemptions of the Act. Should the homeowner not qualify under the principal residence or insolvency exemptions (the two exemptions germane to the sale of real property), he or she will have to report the difference in price between the sale of the property and the amount owed as income.

Please see the following link to the IRS for more information concerning the above and let’s hope the Act is extended past 2012; not only for those who may benefit from it, but also for the benefit of the overall economy.

Unauthorized Practice of Brokerage

Its often said that real estate agents are engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, but what about CPAs, Financial Planners, Property Managers and the like engaging in the unauthorized practice of real estate brokerage. Better yet, what is real estate brokerage in the first place?

Lets start with the Department of State's take on the matter. On their website, the Department of State has a FAQ section for Real Estate Salespersons that reads as follows:


If I am a real estate management company, do I need a real estate broker's license?
That depends on what services you provide. If you collect rent or place tenants in vacant spaces on behalf of your landlord client, the answer is yes. If, on the other hand, your services are strictly maintenance, the answer is no. you are not acting as a fiduciary (not handling another person's money).

So, does this provide the answer? Some may think yes, but when you dig a little deeper you should think about the words utilized in the answer as they actually present more questions than just simple answers. The key word that comes to attention is the term "tenants". After all what is a tenant and what isn't?


To illustrate with some questions:

  • Is the NYC Park Commission granting a private corporation the right to operate an enterprise on a percentage rental basis for 20 years a tenancy? 
  • What about a business broker affecting a lease of an operating hotel premises?
  • How about renting a cooperative unit on an hourly basis?
Are these tenancies?

To learn the answer to these illustrations and more, click here and read a decision by the State of New York, Department of State, Office of Administrative Hearings. This is the best guidance available on this topic. 

It appears that the test is if a transaction concerns "an estate or interest in real property" it requires a brokerage license where providing accommodations to transient guests does not require such a license. 

Now, it is suggested to check your local Town or Village Code, which often has a definition of transient to see if the specific activity you are engaging in is transient or "an estate or interest in real property". Moreover, you will not want to rest on that definition and instead do further research if the interest provided is a license (not brokerage) or a tenancy (brokerage). Yet, the easiest solution for property owners is to hire a licensed broker when dealing with real estate negotiations, sales or leases. This way it is unnecessary to analyze whether the activity in question is viable or instead constitutes the unauthorized practice of real estate brokerage. 

Home Sale Can't Stop Divorce


A most fascinating case was just decided in Manhattan Supreme Court where the parties had agreed (stipulated) that until their residence was sold "neither party shall file any papers to obtain a judgment of divorce". 

So the question before the Court was: "whether the parties can condition their divorce upon the mercurial nature of the New York City real estate market."

The Court would have none of that and deemed this clause unenforceable because the Court felt that public policy was to make a divorce less burdensome and to remove as many roadblocks to its conclusion as possible. 

What is interesting from this case is how people utilize economic coercion as negotiation leverage in a divorce. Had the clause remained, the parties would have either had to accept a lower sales price or remained married. This would have allowed the party less motivated to sell to get concessions from the other party in other aspects of the divorce in order to permit the sale. 

For real estate professionals, you now know that in Manhattan a divorce should not block a sale of the property as the Court doesn't see the sale of real estate as a reason to stop a divorce. Instead, the divorce should go forward and as the Court says: " If the parties are unable to accomplish the sale themselves, then the court can force a sale (CPLR § 5103), appoint a receiver (CPLR § 5106), or order a conveyance by a sheriff (CPLR § 5107)"

To read the case in full, click here

Great class last night - Property Management

I just want to send a special thank you to the Mattituck-Laurel Historical Society for donating their fabulous school house for our continuing education course last evening. It was an experience that I will remember for a lifetime. What a thrill to each in an 1840s working school. I only wish that they had left the rulers to smack the naughty students with.

If you don't know about the Society, click here to learn more. While I loved the experience, the Society needs your help to stay erect and safe. In fact, we discussed the need for a walkway from the parking lot to the school in order to make visiting the site safer. Please do your part and donate to this worthy cause by becoming a member. Just click on this form to join.

Friday, May 04, 2012

Cooperative House Rules Illustrated


A case decided yesterday, 5/3/12, perfectly illustrates the power of cooperative boards. The case addresses whether the board, under the Business Judgment Rule, may create a house rule that restricts subletting. In the situation in the case the restriction imposed was as follows:

 "no [l]essee shall be permitted to sublet the whole or any part of an apartment or renew or extend any previously authorized sublease for more than two years during any four consecutive year period unless consent thereto has first been duly authorized by a resolution of the Directors or . . . by [l]essees owning at least 66⅔% of the then issued and outstanding shares of the Corporation."

The Appellate Court held that the board did have the power to enact such a rule under the Business Judgment Rule. Even going further, the Court rejected a prior decision to the contrary stating cooperative boards have “the authority to freely adopt a new policy in the legitimate interest of the cooperative”.

To read the decision, click here

Thursday, May 03, 2012

Co-Op House Rules & the Proprietary Lease

When purchasing a cooperative apartment you should always read the house rules as they set the standards for living in this environment. For example, the house rules may require that a percentage of an apartment be covered with carpeting to prevent noise or a house rule may not permit swimming in the pool after a certain hour or the rules may contain a no pet policy. Nonetheless, house rules should not be read in a vacuum and its quite important for prospective purchasers to not only study the house rules, but also the proprietary lease, which sets the outer limits of a Board's authority to set the rules. So, when a rule exists in the house rules that is contrary to the proprietary lease, the lease typically holds the day.

Yet, if you are planning to move into a building where the proprietary lease authorizes the Board to set rules for something like carpeting and the house rules do in fact set such a rule, you will be blown away to know that a Board needn't enforce this rule and no one can force them to do so. Why is this you may ask? The answer is called the Business Judgment Rule whereby a Board acting in good faith is shielded from suit when making decisions. So a rule is only enforceable rule when the Board elects to enforce it.

Nonetheless, Boards should act reasonably and their rules are much more likely to be enforced when the rule not only is embodied in a house rule, but also exists in a proprietary lease. Moreover, Boards should uniformly apply their rules or be mindful of both Fair Housing Act violations for discrimination or claims of waiver when they do choose to enforce the rule randomly.

So, perspective purchasers should review the rules and proprietary lease prior to purchasing, but realize that its also important to get to know the members of the Board because their personalities may dictate your living environment.

Know Your Terms


A recent legal malpractice case finds a client suing its former attorneys for failure to include terms in a lease addressing their landlord’s ongoing construction.  As a result of this construction, the client was unable to occupy its office space for nearly four years and claims to have suffered lost profits and consequential damages amounting to millions of dollars. 

Attorneys must be aware of potentially disruptive issues like construction when they negotiate a lease and be sure to address them all in the contract. These attorneys failed to include a single lease term, and now they find themselves defending a multi-million dollar lawsuit arising from a simple commercial transaction. 

There is a lesson here for non-attorneys as well.  Oftentimes real estate brokers will rely on form contracts or draft provisions themselves.  Don’t.  A missing or improperly drafted term in an agreement can have significant financial consequences.  If even skilled attorneys, trained to anticipate litigation around every corner, may miss these issues, how confident are you that a Blumberg form will cover them?

Wednesday, May 02, 2012

License law doesn't equal company policy

While litigating a brokerage commission dispute this afternoon, it dawned on me that real estate agents just don't know their company policy on many issues that they face in their profession. In fact, when they do know their company policy they fight it saying its not what their license permits.

To be clear, company policy is not the same thing as license law, nor is it Department of State regulations and it certainly isn't ethics opinions. What company policy is instead is your company's rules that are much more restrictive than any of the proceeding categories. You see companies have to manage on the macro and try to minimize risks so they make internal rules that narrow the line of legality to attempt to avoid the line of illegality as much as possible.

So imagine license law, regulations and ethics opinions constituting a large circle and company policy as a smaller circle therein of what you can and cannot do as an aspect of your job. All big companies have policies and most agent's independent contractor agreement incorporates these polices by reference, so agents must know and constantly be updated on their policies.

Go read your manuals.

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Lis Pendens for a Brokerage Commission? Not So Fast


A recent article in the Nassau Lawyer argued for the use of the lis pendens to enforce a broker’s right to a commission on the sale of real property.  Before we get our hopes up and start filing notices of pendency on every unpaid commission, let’s take a closer look at the law on this issue.

The lis pendens is a document recorded with the county clerk which warns potential purchasers of real property that litigation is pending which may affect title.  The lis pendens creates constructive notice of the pending lawsuit and renders the property unmarketable.  While this might sound like a great way to enforce your rights to a commission, the lis pendens is available only for actions that affect title, possession, use or enjoyment of real property.  A claim for money due under a contract meets none of these requirements, and it has been consistently held that the lis pendens is not an appropriate remedy. 

One court expressed its utter exasperation that brokers who hold themselves out as real estate professionals could be so ignorant of this “basic tenet of real estate law.” In the Second Department, which includes all of Long Island, it is well settled that this remedy does not apply to brokerage commissions.  See Homespring, LLC v. Lee, 2008 NY Slip Op 7618.

So what is the proper way to enforce your right to a commission?  In residential transactions, the proper remedy is Real Property Law 294-b, which gives a broker the right to record an affidavit of entitlement to a commission with the county clerk who will hold the amount of the commission until the broker’s rights can be determined by a court.  For non-residential transactions, a narrow exception exists which creates a lien when the commission derives from the broker’s negotiation of a lease longer than three years.  Lien Law § 2 (4), 3.

Thursday, April 05, 2012

Can They Make That Rule? Co-Op and Condo Boards’ Authority to Promulgate House Rules

Cooperative and Condominium Boards have broad authority when it comes to making House Rules governing the activity within the community.  This authority derives from the governing documents of the cooperative or condominium, such as the by-laws.  House Rules may cover a wide range of topics from noise and odor levels, to the keeping of pets, to the conduct of owners and guests.

Unless there is a specific limitation on the board’s authority to make rules, such as requiring the rules to be “reasonable,” boards are generally given a high degree of deference in the rules they create.  If the board is acting in good faith, courts will tend not to second-guess them. Furthermore, these rules are usually binding without the consent or approval of the owners.

There is, however, one strong limitation on the authority of boards to make House Rules.  The board cannot attempt to modify the contractual rights of apartment owners through the promulgation of rules.  House rules cannot change, amend, or contradict what is contained in the by-laws, proprietary lease of a co-op, or condominium declaration. 

So if you find yourself asking, “Can they make that rule?” The answer is they probably can.