Increased Discrimination Training For Real Estate Brokers & Salespersons

Starting on July 1, 2022, Bill (S2132B) will add increased fair housing and discrimination training for Real Estate Brokers and Salespersons. 

Summary:

• Requires course content to include:
1. Legacy of segregation, unequal treatment, and historic lack of access to opportunity in housing;
2. Unequal access to amenities and resources on the basis of race, disability and other protected characteristics;
3. Federal, state, and local fair housing laws;
4. Anti-Bias training.
• Requires 152 hours of training to obtain a Real Estate Broker license
• Requires 77 hours of training to become a licensed Real Estate Salesperson
• Requires approval of faculty to sign a document, under oath, approved by and submitted to the Department of State, attesting to compliance with all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements pertaining to the instruction of the established curriculum. There will be penalties for faculty that fail to meet their obligations including suspension and revocation of their instructor certificate.

New RE Brokerage Law: NYS Funding For Fair Housing Testing Efforts

Now there is another initiative by New York State to combat discrimination in real estate.

Effective as of December 21, 2021 a $30 fee has been added for real estate broker / salespersons licenses to cover the costs of the Attorney General to fund fair housing testing throughout NYS. 

Senate Bill S32133A adds a surcharge to the fee paid for issuing or reissuing a real estate broker or salesmen license. 

Owners & Landlords Are No Longer Able to Recover Legal Fees Unless Given Authority by the Court

A new law on landlord's ability to collect legal fees was signed by Gov. Hochul on December 21, 2021 and is effective immediately. The law, S2014, means a lot to owners and landlords in New York. The Bill prohibits owners and landlords from charging lessees any legal fee, surcharge, or other charges for legal services in connection to operating or renting a residential unit, unless the owner/landlord has the legal authority to do so. A lessee is only responsible to pay legal fees if directed by a court order. However, you only get a court order if you go to court and do not resolve issues beforehand. As a result, legal fees for out-of-court negotiations, lease drafting, amendments, and the like are no longer recoverable.

Do you think that owners and landlords will be less likely to resolve disputes without going to court if they can't recover their legal fees? 

It’s no secret that legal work can be costly. So, it is typical for landlord-petitioners to try and recoup the money that they spend retaining an attorney and all of the expenses that come with legal work and legal actions. Aside from legal representation, additional legal fees can include court fees, notary public charges, and administrative charges, to name a few. This bill is aimed at the costs of lease preparation, pre-litigation negotiations, and all the work that landlords need in order to avoid a court case. 

Co-ops are technically landlords to their residents and as a result, all legal fees imposed by the Board for sales, document review, and the like may no longer be recoverable based on this law.  There is no carveout for Co-ops and that needs to be addressed. Perhaps, Governor Hochul should have told the legislature to get it right before she signed the Bill into law.

This is just another obstacle for owners and landlords, which increases the cost of business, and eventually, the rent paid by tenants.

TX Abortion Case Decided by US Supreme Court

To remind you, this is the case that deputized private citizens to enforce the Texas Heartbeat Act (S. B. 8) and rewarded citizens with a $10,000 bounty for their services. 

In its decision, the Supreme Court permitted courts to hear pre-enforcement challenges to test S. B. 8’s compliance with the Federal Constitution rather than forcing those who were subject to it to first violate the law, be prosecuted, and defend themselves before first raising such Constitutional challenges. Had the Supreme Court not so ruled, it was expected that the threat of the law would chill abortions across TX even if the law ultimately was found to violate the US Constitution.  

A pre-enforcement challenge permits anyone who thinks that a law violates the constitution to bring a lawsuit, in court, and have a court rule whether the law is enforceable or should be struck down before that person violates the law. It's like asking for permission for your actions in the face of a law, that exists, but is possibly violative of the US Constitution. 

The Court limited its holding by dismissing the Judge, Clerk, and Attorney General named in the lawsuit. Instead, the Court directed that a pre-enforcement challenge must be brought against executive licensing officials, in state court, or through other unnamed avenues.

Stay tuned, this was just round one of the TX abortion law. 

COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate for Federal Contractors Stayed by Federal Judge.

The ruling by a Georgia federal judge does not prevent employers or businesses from enforcing vaccine mandates. Rather, the Court issued a nationwide stay of President Biden's Executive Order which required all federal contractors to be fully vaccinated by January 18, 2021.

While the Judge expressed his understanding of the dangers of this public health crisis, he, nevertheless, issued the stay because he believed the Executive Order exceeds the President's authority. The Court further reasoned that the potential harm from enforcing a vaccine mandate on federal contractors (causing many federal contractors to breach their contracts when their employees refuse to get vaccinated) outweighs the harm to public health if the contractors are not vaccinated.

Biden will likely appeal this ruling to end the stay. Do you agree with the Judge's reasoning? Would this Executive Order result in a federal contractor employment crisis? Let us know in the comments below.

We'll be sure to keep you updated as this legal fight continues!

Lenders May Soon Be Forced to Maintain Vacated Foreclosed Residential Property at the Start of a Foreclosure Action

A bill (S1579A) awaiting Gov. Hochul's signature will amend section 1307 of New York Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law ("RPAPL") & require plaintiffs, lenders, assignees, or mortgage loan servicers in a residential mortgage foreclosure action to maintain vacated foreclosed property at the commencement of a foreclosure action. 

Currently, section 1307 of the RPAPL imposes a similar duty on plaintiffs to maintain vacated foreclosed property after obtaining a judgment of foreclosure and sale through the time ownership of the vacated foreclosed property has been transferred to another party. 

It is not uncommon for residents who fall behind on their mortgage to leave or abandon their homes. As a result, lenders will commence a foreclosure action, but may delay in taking control of the vacated or abandoned property, resulting in unmaintained and deteriorating property. 

As we all know, the foreclosure process in New York State can be quite lengthy and, in many instances, it can take years for a plaintiff or lender to obtain a judgment of foreclosure and sale. 

Requiring plaintiffs or lenders to maintain abandoned or vacated foreclosed property at the start of a foreclosure proceeding ensures that the foreclosed property will not deteriorate due to lack of maintenance and upkeep and will ensure that the future owner of the foreclosed property will have a home that is in adequate, or even pristine condition, at the time of closing. 

On the other hand, plaintiffs and lenders will likely argue that this amendment places an undue burden on them since they now have to maintain a vacated property at the start of a foreclosure action, rather than towards the tail end of it. 

This could cause lenders to either: 

1. Move quickly in a foreclosure action rather than take their time, or 
2. Delay or limit foreclosure actions altogether in order to avoid the burden of maintaining a vacant or abandoned residential home at the start of a foreclosure proceeding. 

Regardless, aren't there going to be disputes as to whether a property was abandoned and whether the lender was trespassing? Would you want a lender going into your home, even if they were maintaining it, as obligated? 

Lenders would be wise to seek court orders confirming that property is abandoned and they can enter prior to acting under this bill, if it becomes law. Otherwise, they should expect to be counterclaimed for trespassing as they don't have any legal right to the property until the foreclosure proceeding is concluded. 

Stay tuned to see if Gov. Hochul signs this bill into legislation...