LIEB BLOG

Legal Analysts

Wednesday, June 19, 2019

Are attorneys' fees still available to a residential landlord in an eviction proceeding?

On June 14, 2019, rental laws throughout the state were changed forever. We will be updating our network in the weeks ahead of those changes. In the interim, we pose the question - Are attorneys' fees still available to a residential landlord in an eviction proceeding?

Sometimes when lots of laws get changed all at once there emerge errors in draftsmanship, which create litigation events to clarify the meaning of the laws. When it comes to attorneys' fees for a landlord, a conflict has emerged in the language of the new laws.

On the one hand, new RPL §702 states: Rent in a residential dwelling. In a proceeding relating to a residential dwelling or housing accommodation, the term "rent" shall mean the monthly or weekly amount charged in consideration for the use and occupation of a dwelling pursuant to a written or oral rental agreement. No fees, charges or penalties other than rent may be sought in a summary proceeding pursuant to this article, notwithstanding any language to the contrary in any lease or rental agreement.

On the other hand, amended RPL §234 states, in new language, that "[a] landlord may not recover attorneys' fees upon a default judgment." 

As such, RPL §234 implicitly recognizes the availability of attorneys' fee for a litigated summary proceeding. However, RPL §702 provides that no fees may be sought except for rent. Attorneys' fees are by their very nature a fee and hence the conflict. 

Ironically, the limitation on landlords' ability to recover attorneys' fees in a default judgment may be the basis that there ability to recover attorneys' fee in a litigated matter remains after the amended laws. However, only a Judge can decide this one and we will watch to see how the courts resolve the issue.




Loan Officer Compliance Trainings Needed for HMDA Data

Loan Officers (LOs) frequently have issues collecting and entering applicant information on their electronic systems, which results in a denial of the loan. These issues occur when customers don't want to provide the information. At all costs, LOs seek to avoid a loan denial. As a result, LOs often develop strategies to fudge information, as a workaround, so that they can close their loans. These workarounds are often spearheaded by management at structured LO meetings. The LOs and managers know that without fudging the data, their system will hard stop the file and kill their loans. This is a non-starter for one with a broker's mindset.

Lenders - the Consumer Financial Protection Burea (CFPB) recently gave a $1.75 million reminder as to why lenders cannot fudge the data and need a compliance plan, in place, to avoid their LOs and managers from fudging the data. This $1.75 million civil penalty occurred by way of settlement In the Matter of Freedom Mortgage Corporation case.

The Freedom Mortgage Corporation case concerned LOs fudging information required by HMDA and Regulation C where such LOs selected non-Hispanic white when consumers refused to provide their race, ethnicity, and sex.

Interestingly, a compliance plan would have avoided this civil penalty because the applicable regulation permits lenders to report that the applicant did not provide the information and the loan can close. Had there been a compliance plan in place, Freedom Mortgage Corporation would have $1.75 million more today. In fact, CFPB ordered the lender to "develop, implement, and maintain policies, procedures, and internal controls to ensure compliance with data collection, recording, and reporting requirements set forth in HMDA and Regulation C." Additionally, trainings were required by CFPB.

Lenders - you need a compliance company to create policies and train your LOs before you get hit with a case by CFPB.


Tuesday, June 18, 2019

No More Straws at Suffolk County Restaurants

Effective January 1, 2020, Suffolk County restaurants, grocery stores, supermarkets, and convenience stores are only allowed to provide paper / food straws (biodegradable and/or backyard compostable single-use beverage straws or stirrers) to consumers and you don’t get them unless you request them.

These restrictions are pursuant to L.L. No. 20-2019 or §700-13 et seq. of the Suffolk County Code.

There are exceptions though - straws are still allowed for prepackaged individual serving beverages with a small plastic straw included such as juice or milk boxes and pouches. Straws may also still be provided with drinks purchased at a drive through window or self-service beverage station provided that it is biodegradable and/or backyard compostable. Lastly, consumers with a disability or medical condition may still request a plastic or other non-biodegradable straw or stirrer.

Violations are subject to a civil penalty of $100 for the first violation, $200 for any second violation occurring within 12 months of the first violation, and $400 for any third or subsequent violations within 12 months of a prior violation. Each day a violation occurs is a separate and distinct offense.

Condo owners can access adjoining units to perform construction

Ever need to modify the pipes in your condo unit only to be denied access by your downstairs neighbor?

Those where the facts in the case of Marina Vornon and George Argiris v. Board of Managers of the Newswalk Condominium, et al. where the court granted such access.

This is the first time that a right to a construction license was granted in the condominium setting pursuant to RPAPL 881.

Moving forward, if you have a problem with your neighbor while performing condo construction, know that you have rights of access and if you can't negotiate those rights, a court can grant them to you in the form of a license.

Boards - take notice - knowing the law can avoid costly lawsuits.


Friday, June 07, 2019

How to tell if your lawyer is an idiot

Everywhere that I go these days, I see attorney's signs that say that they specialize in this or that. It's on their website, on their shingle, Linkedin - you name it.

Just so consumers know - attorneys' ethical rules state:

A lawyer or law firm may publicly identify one or more areas of law in which the lawyer or the law firm practices, or may state that the practice of the lawyer or law firm is limited to one or more areas of law, provided that the lawyer or law firm shall not state that the lawyer or law firm is a specialist or specializes in a particular field of law, except as provided in Rule 7.4(c).

If your attorney is getting hired by breaking the law, do you think you have a good lawyer?

Just saying...