As discussed below, commingling security deposits with personal funds can have great ramifications to both the tenant and landlord in actions involving disputes over the same.

In Band v. Peters, the tenant entered into a residential lease with the landlord and timely paid both the security and utility deposits pursuant to the terms of the lease. After vacating the subject premises according to the agreed term, the landlord did not return the security and utility deposits. The tenant then brought an action against the landlord alleging, among other claims, that the landlord commingled both deposits with his personal funds. Further, and in violation of the lease and General Obligations Law (“GOL”) §7-103, the tenant alleged that the landlord failed to notify him of the name and address of the bank into which both deposits were made pursuant to the terms of the lease. Additionally, the lease provided for the return of the security deposit within forty-five (45) days following the termination of the lease.

The landlord disputed the above claims and averred that the tenant breached the terms of the lease and therefore, forfeited the return of his security deposit. The tenant countered that even if the Court found that he breached the terms of the lease, there were no deposits that could be forfeited because the landlord commingled the deposits prior to any alleged breach.

The Court found that the landlord did in fact deposit the security and utility deposits into his personal account, rather than holding both deposits in trust for the tenant pursuant to GOL §7-103. Consequently, the Court ordered the immediate return of both deposits with interest, plus attorney’s fees (pursuant to the terms of the lease).

Landlords and tenants should be aware of the above as the two (2) relatively “minor” errors committed by the landlord, which no doubt will continue to occur in the ordinary course of business, can be of great significance to both parties.

The Gates Foundation is challenging engineers to reinvent the toilet into a more efficient, effective model with the following specifications:


"A stand-alone unit without piped-in water, a sewer connection, or outside electricity—all for less than 5 cents a day."

To read more about the future of flushing, click here.

Goldman Sachs offers a great chart breaking down America's 131.8 Million Homes into categories of occupied (listed / unlisted) or vacant (listed, season / recreational properties not listed, for rent, sold unoccupied, or held off market).

To view the diagram, click here.

In People ex rel Cuomo v. First American Corp, the Court of Appeals denies the argument that NY can't regulate appraisals and instead says, while ruling on alleged fraud and violation of real estate appraisal independence rules concerning the issuance of mortgages, that both Federal and State authorities may ensure that real estate appraisal reports comport with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP).

The implication of this ruling is that appraisers should be mindful of increasing oversight by both Federal and State authorities. More so, Appraisers should be knowledgeable of the USPAP and continually review its interpretations and amendments. To review the USPAP, click here.

Just like they have been doing for at least a year in short sales, banks are now offering a portal for homeowners and/or their representatives to apply for a mortgage modification through an online, streamlined, organized and optimized application process. This should mark the beginning of the end of the fax shredder days of modifications where the lender says they never received anything and they blame the homeowner's neglect for the denial of a modification. While the short sale portal utilized is traditionally administered by a third party company, Equator, the modification portal appears to be administered in-house by way of the homeowner's existing online mortgage account, which should create more tailored offerings to the client's specific needs. We highly endorse this move by the banks and believe technology will eliminate much of the he said / she said about document transmission, which is the main crux behind most modification denials to date.