Andrew Lieb, Esq. takes a look at the most recent Fair Housing Initiatives.
Click here to read the full article published in The Suffolk Lawyer.
Click here to read the full article published in The Suffolk Lawyer.
Friday, June 03, 2016
Thursday, June 02, 2016
The New York State
School Tax Relief (STAR) program has changed. Rather than working with the local
assessor, as was required in the past, homeowners will now need to register
with New York State in order to apply for the program. Additionally, qualifying
homeowners will receive a rebate check in the fall of every year rather than
receiving a reduction directly on their school property tax bill.
- Basic STAR: At least one owner must use the property as a primary residence and the total combined household income of the owners and owners’ spouses who use the property as a primary residence must be $500,000 or less.
- Enhanced STAR: At least one owner must use the property as a primary residence, all owners must be 65 years or older, and there must be a total combined household income of all owners (not just those who reside at the property) and any owner’s spouse who uses the property as a primary residence of $84,550. All owners do not need to be over the age of 65 if they are spouses, registered domestic partners or siblings so long as at least one owner is at least 65.
Starting this year, qualifying
homeowners must register with New York State, which can be done online here
or by phone at 518-457-2036, in order to apply for the STAR program. If the
homeowners qualify, they will receive their STAR credit as a rebate check each September.
If homeowners are
already receiving a STAR exemption and purchased their primary residence prior
to May 1, 2014, they do not need to re-register to continue qualifying for the
exemption, and they will continue to receive the exemption as a reduction on their
school property tax bill. Only those who purchased their primary residence
after August 1, 2015 or did not apply before the 2015 STAR application deadline
are affected by these changes.
Homeowners can check your local assessment
roll to see if they are already receiving a STAR exemption. Understanding
how the STAR credit program works and what changes have been implemented can help
save time and money into the future.
Tuesday, May 31, 2016
The
U.S. Department of Treasury recently released Supplemental
Directive 16-04 (Making Home Affordable
Program – Handbook for Servicers Version 5.1). This Supplemental Directive announces the
release of Version 5.1 of the
Making Home Affordable (“MHA”) Handbook (the “Handbook”). This newest version of the Handbook consolidates
the “sunset” provisions provided by the U.S. Department of Treasury in Supplemental
Directive 16-02 (MHA Program Termination
and Borrower Application Sunset) and Supplemental
Directive 16-03 (MHA Program Termination
and Borrower Application Sunset II) into one location for ease of reference.
Distressed
homeowners who are facing foreclosure must submit their request for mortgage assistance
under the MHA program by December 31, 2016.
After that date, lenders will no longer be required to comply with the
MHA guidelines set forth in the Handbook.
This will leave many distressed homeowners with few remaining options
and most will face the possibility of foreclosure.
The MHA
program was announced in 2009, by the Obama Administration, as a relief to
distressed homeowners. The MHA program’s
objective is to provide guidelines to lenders to modify the terms of eligible
mortgages so that “at-risk” homeowners would be able to reduce their monthly
mortgage payments and to avoid foreclosure.
According to the most recent MHA Program
Performance Report,
during the last 7 years, the MHA program has only helped 2.5 million of the 7
to 9 million homeowners that were identified as “at-risk” by the Obama
Administration in 2009. This means that
the remaining 4.5 to 6.5 million “at-risk” homeowners who do not submit their
request for borrower assistance by December 31, 2016, will be faced with
foreclosure.
Congress’
decision to abandon the MHA program seems misguided because of the time and
resources it has invested in the program.
Most importantly, the termination of the program on December 31, 2016,
leaves up to 6.5 million “at-risk” homeowners scrambling to submit requests for
assistance of face the possibility of foreclosure.
Tuesday, May 24, 2016
You may think that you can save money in real estate by not using a Buyer’s Agent. On the contrary, it is often argued that there is no savings because the secondary benefits of using a Buyer’s Agent surpass any costs of such a Buyer’s Agent. Nonetheless, the only factor that can actually save you money in brokerage commission in a real estate transaction is if it’s a Direct Deal.
Read the full article by Andrew Lieb, Esq. here.
Read the full article by Andrew Lieb, Esq. here.
Monday, May 16, 2016
Finally, an article that simplifies this extremely complicated agency disclosure topic.
Buyer’s Agent. Seller’s Agent. Direct Deal. The terms may sound familiar, but do you or your clients or customers really know what they mean? That knowledge is essential for all sides in real estate dealings, particularly in understanding commissions and not violating license laws.
What’s in a Name? In Real Estate It Could Be the Difference Between a Great Deal & No Deal, is written by Andrew Lieb, Esq. one of the premiere lecturers on this topic.
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
The U.S. Department of Treasury (Treasury) recently released Supplemental Directive (SD) 16-03 (MHA Program Termination and Borrower Application Sunset II) to the Making Home Affordable (MHA) handbook, containing “sunset” provisions for its MHA program. The release of this Supplemental Directive signals that there will be no further extensions of the program.
The Making Home Affordable program was announced in 2009, by the Obama Administration, as a relief to distressed homeowners. The MHA program’s objective is to provide guidelines to lenders to modify the terms of eligible mortgages so that “at-risk” homeowners would be able to reduce their monthly mortgage payments and to avoid foreclosure. According to the most recent MHA Program Performance Report, during the last 7 years, the MHA program has only helped 2.5 million of the 7 to 9 million homeowners that were identified as “at-risk” by the Obama Administration in 2009. This means that the remaining 4.5 to 6.5 million “at-risk” homeowners who do not submit their request for borrower assistance by December 31, 2016, will be faced with foreclosure.
SD 16-03 provides the following modifications to the MHA handbook for winding down the program:
The Making Home Affordable program was announced in 2009, by the Obama Administration, as a relief to distressed homeowners. The MHA program’s objective is to provide guidelines to lenders to modify the terms of eligible mortgages so that “at-risk” homeowners would be able to reduce their monthly mortgage payments and to avoid foreclosure. According to the most recent MHA Program Performance Report, during the last 7 years, the MHA program has only helped 2.5 million of the 7 to 9 million homeowners that were identified as “at-risk” by the Obama Administration in 2009. This means that the remaining 4.5 to 6.5 million “at-risk” homeowners who do not submit their request for borrower assistance by December 31, 2016, will be faced with foreclosure.
SD 16-03 provides the following modifications to the MHA handbook for winding down the program:
- All borrower requests for assistance under MHA must be submitted by December 31, 2016;
- On December 1, 2017, MHA Help and the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) Solution Center will no longer accept new cases, nor escalate cases to servicers;
- All cases that have been escalated prior to December 1, 2017 must be resolved by May 1, 2018;
- After December 30, 2016, servicers will no longer be required to assign relationship managers to borrowers;
- Effective May 1, 2018, servicers will no longer be required to follow Section 3 of Chapter 1 of the MHA Handbook; however, the Treasury suggests that servicers continue to follow the best practices that have been established by MHA;
- After September 1, 2016, servicers are no longer required to satisfy the Reasonable Effort standard set forth in Section 2.2.1 of Chapter II of the MHA handbook; and
- Servicers will not be required to suspend a scheduled foreclosure sale if a borrower submits an Initial Package after December 30, 2016.
Thursday, May 05, 2016
On 5/3/16 the NYS Board of Real Estate continued its mission of optimizing the regulation of real estate brokers in our state by holding its meeting in NYC, Buffalo and Albany. To remind real estate brokers and salespersons, the public is welcome at these meetings where the public can bring comments from the floor. It's encouraged that Lieb School students attend these meetings to have your voices heard.
"[T]he Board has general authority to promulgate rules and regulations affecting real estate brokers and salespersons in order to administer and effectuate the purposes of Article 12-A of the Real Property Law."
A complete video of the meeting is available on youtube.
In summary, the following was discussed:
"[T]he Board has general authority to promulgate rules and regulations affecting real estate brokers and salespersons in order to administer and effectuate the purposes of Article 12-A of the Real Property Law."
A complete video of the meeting is available on youtube.
In summary, the following was discussed:
- Enforcement activity report;
- Equalizing points for salespersons seeking a real estate broker's license for acting on the selling and listing sides of deals;
- Updates on the continuing education topics of agency and diversity;
- The new broker's curriculum; and
- Fair Housing regulations, which were passed.
Most interestingly, the enforcement report claimed that while 317 complaints were fielded by the Department of State from January through April of this year, only 2% were referred to the Administrative Department to pursue charges. Agents should translate that statistic as meaning that while a lot of complaints come into the Department of State, a lot of effort is exerted in weeding out the legitimate complaints from the lot. This is quite reassuring.
Tuesday, April 26, 2016
Summer rentals got off to a great start this year, yet there are still
people looking to secure that ideal getaway, and there are still
East End homeowners who could quickly become landlords
for the season. In each issue of Behind the Hedges, I offer insights and
information about the legal side of Hamptons real estate. Here’s one that is
particularly valuable and bears re-sharing this time of year, when we need
to remember: with every great summer rental comes great responsibility.
The secret to success for both landlords and tenants is to set clear
expectations before the rental period gets underway. If either party has
false expectations, the summer can end with anger, arguing and possibly
court. Before renting, discuss these topics and then have an attorney draft
a lease accordingly.
Read the full article by Andrew Lieb, Esq. in Behind The Hedges.
Read the full article by Andrew Lieb, Esq. in Behind The Hedges.
On January 1, 2016 the amended
Article 32 of the Labor Law became
effective thereby making it “unlawful
for any person to engage, advertise or
hold themselves out as a mold assessor,
remediation contractor, or abatement
worker unless they have a valid mold
license, issued by the commissioner,
for the type of work they will be performing.
Individuals who do so may be
subject to a civil penalty.”
Read the full article by Andrew Lieb, Esq. in the Suffolk Lawyer.
Read the full article by Andrew Lieb, Esq. in the Suffolk Lawyer.
Wednesday, April 13, 2016
Real Estate Attorney
Lieb at Law, P.C., is seeking the next Attorney to help raise the bar and lead our profession in a collaborative, inspiring and technologically advanced setting. The firm offers an environment that supports personal and professional growth without micromanagement or dogmatic resistance to fresh and innovative ideas. Driven attorneys who prove their competence are quickly rewarded with responsibility and opportunities beyond that offered for similarly experienced attorneys at major firms. Competence trumps experience and career growth is limited only by your own ability, ambition and desire to learn and evolve. Career advancement includes partner-track.We are looking for a potential star that is intellectually driven, who does not cut corners, has a fresh approach, thinks outside-the-box and can provide tangible fact-driven support. Our firm motto is ‘no case; no statute; no talk’. This means that fluff will not get you very far at Lieb at Law, P.C. We challenge you to provide supporting anecdotal evidence of why you would thrive in a collaborative firm that consists of 6 Attorneys, 3 Law Clerks, 2 Business Managers and 1 Paralegal.
This role will start off working across all aspects of the firm’s real estate practice inclusive of foreclosure litigation, mortgage default workouts, real estate transactions, landlord / tenant transactions and evictions, land use and business transactions. Then, the candidate is charged with developing their personal niche as their carrier evolves.
This position is located in Center Moriches, which is in Suffolk County within the Riverhead / Westhampton Area. Clients span across Long Island, New York City and Westchester.
Compensation: Commensurate with experience, includes full benefits package.
About The Firm: Lieb at Law’s mission is to serve as an indispensable strategic advisor to our clients, helping to minimize risk while maximizing profitability, and aggressively litigate with leading solutions. The firm’s transactional team ensures that contractual language is driven by qualitative data from the litigation field. Lieb at Law’s work product is a derivative of embracing education and technology. Lieb at Law is fully committed to our technology-based collaborative approach and believes that this operational model drives our success.
Beyond utilizing legal research platforms to enable immediate access to the most recent case law and publications, the firm’s systems include cloud-based file and time management software with additional proprietary programs. As a result, Lieb Attorneys have instantaneous access to client records anywhere, even on their smartphones in court and at closings.
To Apply: Email Cover Letter, Resume and Salary Requirements to careers@liebatlaw.com
- See more at: http://lawjobs.com/job/real-estate-attorney-center-moriches-new-york-164526#sthash.EkMA9Mye.dpuf
Monday, April 04, 2016
Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that disparate impact
discrimination claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act. For a refresher, read my blog post about the decision here. In sum, landlords may be
liable for discrimination if the effect of a facially neutral housing action
has a disproportionate impact on a protected class.
Today, the office of general counsel to the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development issued a memorandum offering guidance
regarding the potential discriminatory effects of taking an adverse housing
action against a tenant based upon their criminal history. A link to the memorandum can be found here. The logline for this memorandum is that HUD believes taking
an adverse housing action based upon criminal history may constitute
discrimination on the basis of race or national origin because of its disparate
impact on those protected classes.
The memorandum examines the three-step burden-shifting test
a court would analyze in a claim brought by a tenant who alleges they were
discriminated based upon their criminal history. The stated purpose of the
memorandum is facially neutral, addressing “how the discriminatory effects and
disparate treatment methods of proof apply in Fair Housing Act cases in which a
housing provider justifies an adverse housing action… based on an individual’s
criminal history.” The practical effect of the memorandum, however, is that HUD
has armed plaintiff’s attorneys with a new theory of liability that all
landlord’s should understand.
The three-step burden-shifting test requires that a
plaintiff first prove that the complained of practice has a discriminatory
effect. If the plaintiff is successful, the defendant must then prove that the
challenged practice has a legally sufficient justification. Finally, if the
defendant proves a legally sufficient justification, a plaintiff must then
prove that there is a less discriminatory alternative available. The HUD
memorandum examines each question and attempts to offer guidance in turn.
Discriminatory Effect
HUD submits that national statistics stand for the
conclusion that “[n]ationally, racial and ethnic minorities face
disproportionately high rates of arrest and incarceration. Without drawing its
own conclusion, HUD posits that these statistics, along with other evidence,
could provide sufficient proof for the legal position that taking an adverse housing
action, such as refusing to enter or renew a lease based upon criminal history,
has a disparate impact on African Americans or Hispanics.
Legally Sufficient Justification
If a plaintiff is successful in proving that an adverse
housing action on the basis of criminal history has a discriminatory effect on
racial or ethnic minorities, a defendant would then be compelled to provide a
legally sufficient justification for the action. In analyzing this factor, HUD
acknowledges that “resident safety and protecting property are often considered
to be among the fundamental responsibilities of a housing provider”. However,
HUD does push back by requiring that a defendant submit evidence supporting the
conclusion that a policy of discriminating on the basis of criminal history
furthers the stated purpose of protecting residents and property. That is, a
landlord cannot blindly rely upon this justification in every situation. HUD
suggests that landlords consider each potential tenant on a case by case basis
instead of having a blanket policy of refusing to lease to anyone with a
criminal history
For example, HUD submits that the existence of a prior
arrest, which does not carry a subsequent conviction, “has very little, if any,
probative value in showing that he has engaged in any misconduct. An arrest
shows nothing more than that someone probably suspected the person apprehended
of an offense.” HUD concludes that “because arrest records do not constitute proof
of past unlawful conduct… the fact of an arrest is not a reliable basis upon
which to assess the potential risk to resident safety or property posed by a
particular individual.”
Moving further, HUD submits that even a criminal conviction
does not automatically create a legally sufficient justification. “A housing provider
that imposes a blanket prohibition on any person with any conviction record –
no matter when the conviction occurred, what the underlying conduct entailed,
or what the convicted person has done since then – will be unable to meet this
burden [of proving a legally sufficient justification].” HUD suggests that a “housing provider
must show that its policy accurately distinguishes between criminal conduct
that indicates a demonstrable risk to resident safety and/or property and
criminal conduct that does not.”
Less Discriminatory Alternative
If a landlord proves a legally sufficient justification for
the challenged policy or act, the plaintiff may still prevail by proving that a
less discriminatory alternative exists. Here, HUD offers no substantiated
guidance but submits that the analysis must be performed on a case by case
basis. The only suggestion proffered by HUD is that a landlord may consider
delaying a criminal history investigation until after a tenant has already qualified
financially.
Conclusion
In the end, HUD has taken an aggressive position that all
landlords must remain cognizant of when making housing decisions. When forming
a policy of utilizing criminal background checks, a landlord should ensure that
their policy is “tailored to serve the housing provider’s substantial,
legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest and take[s] into consideration such
factors as the type of the crime and the length of the time since conviction.” A
landlord who has no evidence that its policy or action is grounded in
nondiscriminatory justification will be vulnerable to complaints.
At
the very least, HUD has made it clear that blanket prohibitions on any person
with a criminal history will face legal challenges based upon the Supreme Court’s
upholding of the disparate impact theory of discrimination.
Monday, March 28, 2016
Tonight, 3/28/16, Andrew M. Lieb will be instructing a CLE, Top 10 Real Estate Laws of 2015, based upon the article of the same title.
The event is sponsored by First American at the Omni Building in Uniondale.
The supporting materials are provided here.
The event is sponsored by First American at the Omni Building in Uniondale.
The supporting materials are provided here.
Thursday, March 24, 2016
Monday, March 14, 2016
On 2/26/16 the NYS Board of Real Estate continued its mission of optimizing the regulation of real estate brokers in our state by holding its meeting in NYC, Buffalo and Albany. To remind real estate brokers and salespersons, the public is welcome at these meetings where the public can bring comments from the floor. It’s encouraged that Lieb School students attend these meetings to have your voices heard.
"[T]he Board has general authority to promulgate rules and regulations affecting real estate brokers and salespersons in order to administer and effectuate the purposes of Article 12-A of the Real Property Law."
The following pending regulations have moved forward and have one more required round of approval prior to being published in the State Register for public comment:
Pending Regulations:
1) Commingling of principal funds
2) Compensation of brokers
3) Additional license safety course
4) Changing the amount of hours from a course from 60 minutes required to 50 minutes required
5) Advertising regulations
6) Updates to the broker approval course
Next, the meeting shifted to a focus on Fair Housing in furtherance of the Governor's Fair Housing Initiative from February of this year. In support thereof, 19 NYCRR 175.17 was proposed to be amended and unanimously approved by vote. The new amended regulation will both broaden the protected classes to include all Federal, State, and Locally Protected Classes and clarify that a violation of Fair Housing, as determined by any local agency or a court of competent jurisdiction, shall be presumptive evidence of untrustworthiness in real estate brokerage wherein the Department of State may revoke a license.
In all, the meeting's apparent goal was to increase awareness and enforcement of Fair Housing, to alert agents about upcoming educational awareness and outreach planned by the Department of State, and to renew the State's focus and attention onto discrimination through a collaboration between the Department of State and the Department of Human Rights.
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
The Court of Appeals in Beltz v. City of Yonkers effectively established the Trivial Defect Doctrine in 1895, a staple in the modern defense attorney’s playbook. Therein, the court recognized that no walkway could be kept so perfectly safe so as to preclude the possibility of an accident and accordingly held that “when … the defect is so slight that no careful or prudent man would reasonably anticipate any danger from its existence … the question of defendant’s responsibility is one of law.” Perhaps shocking to a modern practitioner, the Beltz court found that a two and a half inch deep, 26 inch long and seven inch wide depression in a sidewalk was not an actionable defect. Ever since, New York courts have struggled to define when a defect in a walkway is actionable.
The full article written by Dennis C. Valet, Esq. has been published in The Suffolk Lawyer and can be found here.
Position:
Associate Attorney (Entry Level)
Lieb at Law, P.C., is seeking the next Associate Attorney to
help raise the bar and lead our profession in a collaborative, inspiring and
technologically advanced setting.
This position is ideal for an aspiring litigator with a
winning attitude. Gain hands-on
litigation experience inclusive of appearances at conferences, oral arguments, depositions,
trials, negotiations, mediation, arbitration, motion practice and appeals. You will be exposed to Complex Commercial,
Corporate and Real Estate Litigation; Plaintiff Personal Injury; Outside
Counsel Corporate Representation; Real Estate Brokerage Litigation; Foreclosure
Defense, Estate Litigation and more.
The
firm offers an educational environment that supports personal and professional growth
without micromanagement or dogmatic resistance to fresh and innovative ideas. Attorneys who prove their competence are
quickly rewarded with responsibility and opportunities beyond that offered for
similarly experienced attorneys at major firms. Competence trumps experience
and career growth is limited only by your own ability, ambition and desire to
learn and evolve. Career advancement includes partner track.
We are looking for a potential star that is intellectually
driven, who does not cut corners, fresh approach, outside-the-box thinking, and
who can provide tangible fact-driven support. Our firm motto is “no case, no
statute, no talk”. This means that fluff will not get you far in our firm. We
challenge you to provide supporting anecdotal evidence of why you would thrive
in a collaborative litigation firm that consists of 6 Attorneys, 3 Law Clerks,
2 Business Managers and 1 Paralegal.
This position is in Center Moriches which is located in
Suffolk County in the Riverhead / Westhampton Area. Clients span across Long
Island, New York City and Westchester.
About The Firm: Lieb
at Law’s mission is to serve as an indispensable strategic advisor to our
clients, helping to minimize risk while maximizing profitability, and
aggressively litigating with leading solutions. The firm’s transactional team
ensures that contractual language is driven by qualitative data from the
litigation field. Lieb at Law’s work product is a derivative of embracing
education and technology. Lieb at Law is
fully committed to our technology based collaborative approach and believe that
this operational model drives our success.
Beyond utilizing multiple legal research platforms to enable
immediate access to the most recent case law and publications, the firm’s
systems include cloud-based file and time management software with additional
proprietary programs. As a result, Lieb Attorneys have instantaneous access to
client records anywhere, even on their smartphones in court.
Compensation:
Commensurate with experience. Full benefits package.
To apply, email your resume and cover letter to careers@liebatlaw.com
Thursday, February 18, 2016
We know that you will never want education from anywhere else after you try it!
FINALLY A FAIR HOUSING CLASS THAT IS ENTERTAINING!!!
4 CE Credits
Satisfies DOS Licensing Requirement
Instructed by Andrew Lieb, Esq.
* Works on PCs, MACs, IPADs, Tablets
Summary: Be warned - Discrimination in housing is very serious and exposes real estate agents to immense liability and the potential loss of their license. In fact, discrimination is so serious that the Department of State only requires this topic to be included in the requisite 22.5 hours of continuing education, but requires no other topic. This course is not a general survey course on discrimination, instead it explains a very specific law: The Fair Housing Act, which sets the nationwide standard for anti-discrimination laws in residential housing. The seminar will detail specific cases involving real estate agents who violated the Act. Be prepared for this course to hit home.
The Fair Housing Act ONLINE is an adaptation of the live class The Fair Housing Act offered by Lieb School. This 4 hour distance education course is designed to teach New York real estate brokers and salespersons how to perform their job without exposure to lawsuits.
This course is instructed by premiere lecturer and attorney Andrew M. Lieb, Esq., MPH, who combines video footage of live class segments with visuals, study guides, and quizzes in order to optimize your understanding of the intense materials. It is delivered in an asynchronous model to allow for accessibility whenever and wherever you find convenient while also offering note-taking and in-class comment features to provide opportunities for feedback, questions, and discussions.
Unlike the 3-credit live class, this course accounts for 4 credits of the total 2-year requirement of 22.5 credits for license renewal, thereby allowing you to satisfy more credits with just one class.
*** THIS COURSE SATISFIES THE ONLY MANDATORY CLASS REQUIREMENT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE OF NY (DOS) FOR AT LEAST 3 HOURS OF INSTRUCTION PERTAINING TO FAIR HOUSING AND / OR DISCRIMINATION ***
