LIEB BLOG

Legal Analysts

Monday, November 21, 2011

The Empire has Fallen - Baum to Close

The Empire has Fallen - Baum to Close
In a remarkable piece of news, foreclosure powerhouse, Steven J. Baum P.C. is closing. They have had a tough month first with their photographs mocking homelessness at their Halloween party to being kicked out of the Fannie / Freddie inner circle. Yet, this is a striking day in the history of the foreclosure crisis. Even the king of foreclosure is now homeless, Steven J. Baum P.C. is no more.

To read a NY Times Article, click here.
Read more »
By at

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

New York Supreme Court rules Court can continue to sell case information

New York Supreme Court rules Court can continue to sell case information

The New York City Housing Court (“NYCHC”) maintains a database of every matter that passes through its court. “Okay…so what’s the problem with that?” you may ask. Well, a Landlord may obtain this information for a fee from one of the various organizations who purchase this information from the Court. This practice may result in prospective tenants being rejected and/or blacklisted for a housing application due to the Landlord’s perception that the prospective tenant is a “problem tenant” due to the tenant’s name surfacing in a search. However, an attorney has challenged this operation as it paints an incomplete and unfair picture with respect to prospective tenants.

For example, the information obtained does not include a tenant’s reasons behind filing or their ultimate disposition of the case. Meaning, even if the tenants were “in the right” for bringing and/or defending an action, the Landlord is not privy to this information. Instead, the Landlord merely ascertains that the prospective tenant has been a party (it does not even specify whether the tenant brought the action or is defending it) to a NYCHC action and may subsequently unfairly dismiss this tenant as problematic.

As of yesterday, the tenant in Whelan v. Lippman lost the bid to bar the Court System from selling this potentially harmful information to third-party companies by denying the tenant’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The underlying case concerning the “blacklisting” of tenants, however, was not dismissed. We will continue to monitor both the underlying case and any potential appeal of the related case. In the interim, be wary that your potential Landlord may utilize these services when reviewing your application.

Read more »
By at

Monday, November 14, 2011

Nassau DA faces eviction from Co-Op

Nassau DA faces eviction from Co-Op
The Nassau District Attorney is being evicted from her Co-Op for violating the Co-Op's house rules.

Apparently the Co-Op adopted a new house rule that requires "no new pet without prior approval policy". Well, the District Attorney got a new pet without prior approval. Yet, she thinks she should be able to keep the pet.

The District Attorney appears to be fighting the eviction by saying she only bought the Co-Op because it permitted pets, she wasn't properly notified about the new policy and that by allowing other inhabitants who had a pet prior to the policy to be grandfathered in without prior approval, the rule is improper.

Yet, the District Attorney should realize that when you purchase a Co-Op, you purchase an apartment subject to ever changing rules. If you don't like rules, get a house. While Co-Ops offer ease of living, it does not afford autonomy or privacy. Instead, its communal living with community rules.
Read more »
By at

Wednesday, November 02, 2011

Can an advertisement describe the property's walkability?

Can an advertisement describe the property's walkability?
At a recent course entitled "To be Green or not to be Green, that is the question...", an agent suggested that discussing walkability in a listing was a violation of the Fair Housing Act because it discriminates based upon disability.

While I did not believe this to be true as the term walkability is utilized in common parlance to discuss distance, I acknowledged its potential to offend and thereafter decided to check the Department of State's Administrative Hearing Decisions for such a licensing decision. Thereafter, I checked Westlaw for case law decisions on the topic. After an exhaustive search, I found nothing. Does this mean someone can't claim a violation? No. It just means no violation has been recorded concerning the term walkability in an advertisement for property.

As we always teach, opinions are not really relevant, only facts, laws, and prior decisions should dictate our behavior. Therefore, real estate agents are always directed to check prior licensing decisions by clicking here if they have a question about the propriety of their proposed actions.
Read more »
By at

Thursday, October 20, 2011

Sellers Concession without disclosed Gross-up = Subterfuge

Sellers Concession without disclosed Gross-up = Subterfuge
So says the Committee on Professional Ethics to the New York State Bar Association in Opinion 882 (10/14/11). This Opinion is a follow-up and clarification of Opinion 817 (2007), which has been the subject of great discussion in the real estate world since its issuance.

In essence, these Opinions discuss the ethics of increasing a purchase price, to in effect, increase a mortgage, to thereafter pay the buyer's closings costs (which is traditionally a sellers concession), but now a seller's concession without a concession on the part of the seller. The issue is this: A seller's concession with a gross-up changes the Loan to Value ratio and consequently the risk of the investment for the mortgagee. Further, this risk is shared with whomever later purchases the mortgage coupled with tax assessors and the like. Yet, without full disclosure in all of the closing documents, future mortgage purchasers / property assessors will not be placed on appropriate notice of the increased risk, consequently paying more for the purchase than the value; hence, the Subterfuge.

In essence, the closing parties circumvent the Banking Law's restrictions on closing costs to mortgage ratios & manipulate public records on closing prices.

The Opinion goes on to state a lawyer, whether the seller's, buyer's and lender's, who participates in a transaction with a sellers concession and gross-up without full disclosure in all closing papers is violating Rule 8.4(c) of his ethic's rules.

Lastly, the Opinion states that a lawyer is not discharged from this obligation by the suggestion of the mortgage broker, loan officer or other employee of the bank. Therefore, its a non-waivable requirement to disclose a sellers concession and gross-up.

The disclosure required is that: "The sales prices has been increased by a sum equal to the seller's concession". Write it in all your real estate papers and your are in the clear. Now lets go close some deals.
Read more »
By at