Before responding to your individual questions, let me state that I see a number of potentially serious conflicts of interest. I feel your board will be well served to consult your attorney before allowing any of these transactions to take place. The legal requirements regarding conflicts of interest have recently been made more stringent so a consult would be in your best interests.

Remember, I Am Not A Lawyer!

- is it appropriate for a Super to hire a relative to be a porter so then a direct report?

I don't see anything inherently inappropriate, but a family relationship will definitely complicate an employment relationship. Especially if you're a union building with all the rules and requirements around discipline and termination. Related family members tend to let things slide a little more than non-related and you'll have to be careful the relationship doesn't build resentment.

- is it appropriate that a Super buys a unit even though the co-op pays for his unit? So either he flips the purchased unit or has a relative live in it? So then becomes an employee besides a shareholder.

Ask your attorney for advice. It will definitely be a complex relationship between the board and the Super and may require additional agreements such as occupancy and/or resale agreement.

- is it appropriate that a managing agent purchases a unit in a co-op and then flips it?

Up to the board if they want to approve the sale. MA can't buy without board approval so the board has final discretion if a sale is allowed.

I hope this helps.

From what you wrote, it sounds like your board is trying a reasonable approach to meeting the potentially draconian requirements of LL97. LL97 can have very serious financial consequences if the efficiency limits are not met. I read some of the Cozy Covers website, and their approach to improving energy consumption efficiency makes sense.

To answer your question about under what law does the board have the right to do what it is doing, I recommend you read about the "Business Judgment Rule". The BJR gives boards very wide latitude to impose rules and guidelines as long as the imposition is done in good faith and applies to all shareholders.

In your case, the board is attempting to meet the dictates of LL97 using a low-cost solution, and the BJR gives your board the right to use whatever measures are available to them to obtain full compliance. The alternative for your building may be a major heating system overhaul or replacement and believe me, you do not want to see the maintenance increase or assessment for that.

Please don't consider the measures your board may use to achieve full compliance as "punishments", but look at them as a form of "fiscal attitude adjustment."

Thanks steven424 for your response. The only thing I'll add is that the bullying,dictatorial nature of the threatening notice,we received is disturbing to me, but I appreciate your insight.

You're welcome. Without meaning to sound facetious, have you considered running for the board, or putting together an opposition slate of candidates? I know in some buildings the incumbent boards try to put up roadblocks to any challenge of their power and authority, but that is really the only way to change the status quo.

Good luck to you!

In the case of our 12-building co-op, the Cozy covers have now been installed in at least 80% of the units. Thus the Co-op has met the standard of the law and need not worry about being out of compliance. Despite that, as shareholders we agree that the board has the right to require Cozies to be installed in remaining units, if it so chooses. However, this would means requiring some shareholders to demolish thousands of dollars of custom woodwork and other installed renovations — shelves, cabinets, etc, and in one case, a wall. The board is saying that individual shareholders must bear the cost of demolition and replacement alone, and to accept the corresponding reduction in value of their units and the loss of habitability and enjoyment during this work. It is saying that individuals must find and contract for these changes and complete them by Jan 2023. Moreover, it has established a near deadline (July 1) for committing, beyond which shareholders will be fined. It threatens legal action against shareholders who do not meet these deadlines, and has refused thus far requests for a meeting with those affected. We regard this policy as a wildly inequitable special assessment on a minority of shareholders, requiring them to pay far more than their proportionate shares for a co-op–wide project. We hope that the board will reconsider granting exemptions to shareholders who can document their built-in renovations, saving the co-op as well the unnecessary expense.

19% debt-to-income ratio seems rather restrictive, but I doubt it's unprecedented. That board may have had some bad experiences with under-capitalized purchases and the 19% ratio may be a reaction. Have you tried asking the board president or treasurer for a reason? Have you heard any rumors or facts about recent defaults or foreclosures?

I assume the imposition of the 19% ratio is recent. What was it before the change? How did you find out about it, formal notification or word-of-mouth? If yours is a small co-op with few units, financial difficulty in one unit could significantly adversely affect everyone else.

Every co-op is different, and as long as an action taken by the board can be objectively seen as being in the co-op's best interests, the board is protected by the Business Judgment Rule.

I wrote a long history of what was happening to my Private Coop 2630 Kingsbridge Terrace, Bronx NY. Don't know what happened to it! Basically we were hit with two maintenance increases in two years 13% total. Now we're hit with the bldg needs to raise $1,000,000 in 3 years, and it starts June 1, 2022 To fund some upgrades, and local law 11 requirements, and pay some fines that were discovered. We changed mgmt companies and they found out that the previous mgmt did not pay our vendors. This story is long. The Board has proven to be dysfunctional. They ASSUMED! the bills were being paid by previous mgmt, SO THE SHAREHOLDERS ARE RESPONSIBLE TO PAY! AGAIN1 PLEASE Someone, anyone contact me and tell me what I can do with this mess! I'M DESPERATE! 646 319-7372 OR EMAIL tHANKS!

What you have described about your old managing agent is considered Grand Larceny. With proof in hand I would report this crime to your District Attorney. WHY? It seems your secretary of the board and your executive board members should have known this.
Your new managing agent should have advised the boards lawyer and press charges and hold the old agent responsible for this crime.
Can you inform us of your ex-managing agents name so others boards not hire or have them. Best of Luck

As PC#1 pointed out, you're facing a long list of incompetence and possibly criminal activity. Your board, as the legal representatives of your co-op corporation, needs to contact the co-op's attorney immediately and inform them of what's going on. No individual shareholder nor board member should take any action on their own, except to contact your attorney.

In the event your board can't or won't contact your attorney, you may have to do so independently, but that is a last resort.

How widespread among the shareholders is the knowledge of what's been going on? It is better to work as and with a group on something like this and not individually.

Thank you for the information! All the shareholders are aware of the situation, as we were informed when they asked for this 1,000,000 amt in a letter. The previous management was Anker management 200 North Central Ave. suite 340, Hartsdale, NY 10530. I was told by a Board member that the previous board was "NEGLIGENT" NOT "CRIMINAL!" SEE MY FRUSTRATION! The board did not invite the atty to the annual meeting because that would cost them $500 for him to attend, I guess the accountant came for free, but DID'NT HAVE any financial information to give us! We a group of 4 have sent a letter to the Bronx DA Darcel Clark asking for an audit of both management companies. I have also reached out to an assemblyman to help try to guide us in this situation

Sorry to hear about your dad. In order to have a new stock certificate issued, the executor of the estate will typically need to present Letters Testamentary and a death certificate when making the request. Some co-ops may request additional documentation. The fee for reissuance is usually a few hundred dollars.

The certificate will still be in your dad's name. Those who inherit the shares do *not* automatically become shareholders themselves, under most Proprietary Leases. Ordinarily, the only exception is the shareholder's spouse. To become a shareholder, you would need to go through the usual application process. Alternatively, the estate can sell the apartment and the purchaser would need to present a complete and acceptable application.

Even if the board rejects you as a shareholder, the estate will still own the shares and lease, and can sell the apartment to someone else.

Please check with your attorney and your accountant about the tax implications. It is possible that becoming a shareholder yourself will reduce your capital-gains tax burden when you sell to someone else. Only a professional in the field can tell you for sure.

I'm also sorry to hear about your dad's passing.

If your dad was a Connecticut resident but owned property in NY, you may also require a NY probate. Your attorney will advise. If your dad still has a mortgage on either property then the mortgage-holder will probably have the stock certificate(s).

Your attorney should have advised you to get a "date of death" appraisal on both co-ops as soon as possible. The current value of the units will become your new basis for capital gains purposes and will save you a lot on taxes when you do sell the units.

I cannot reiterate enough how important it is for you to follow Carl's suggestions — in particular, letting the attorney who is handling your dad's estate take care of this matter for you as well. My wife was a Trust & Estates attorney in NYC, and she used to say (facetiously) that she billed the most hours from people who tried to save $$$ by taking the DIY approach.

I asked for a stock certificate duplicate in the name of my deceased father and the Coop Administration is requesting me a Title 9 Eagle Insurance.

Is an insurance neccesary to issue a stock certificate duplicate?

Hi Frank - Search for "Title 9 Eagle Insurance" in your favorite search engine. There are a lot of articles describing what it is, its purpose, and why you are being asked to obtain it.

Are you talking about the co-op corporation's underlying building mortgage or an individual shareholder's mortgage? I'm asking because you mention what sounds like taking the 1% fee for brokering an original mortgage for the co-op corp itself. Almost all co-ops have existing mortgages that get refinanced every 10 years.

That being said, if the MA actually brokered the original or refi mortgage then they are entitled to a fee for services.

The best way to find out what is going on is to ask the board treasurer. They should have the most up-to-date information easily available.

--- Steve

yes thanks for the input, it is the coop underlying mortgage.
Our building just did a refi.

Hi Gary - Refinancing a co-op's commercial mortgage is almost as complicated as obtaining a new one. It is above and beyond the normal MA services the monthly fee pays for. So IMHO, a 1% commission is not unreasonable.

Congrats on getting the mortgage before the rates go too high

1% is a typical fee for a management company to facilitate a refi for a co-op.

I Am Not A Lawyer, but I believe it means that if the shares are transferred from one owner to another without "consideration" (without money changing hands), the co-op cannot collect any flip tax or transfer fees.

An example of this kind of transfer would be if someone inherits the share of a co-op apartment as a bequest or residuary beneficiary, they would not have to pay the flip tax normally imposed on the purchase transfer of the shares.

That's an unusual requirement, in my experience. Check the precise language in your By-Laws. In many cases, there's no restriction on directors at all. In other coops - such as ours - a director must be either a shareholder or the spouse of a shareholder.

If it just says "resident," that seems ambiguous. Obviously a person would be eligible if it's their primary residence, and not eligible if they're subletting and not living there at all. But what about all the situations in between? Someone with a summer home where they spend three months a year? Someone who plans to sublet two months after the election? Someone who says they're a primary resident but the NYC records do not reflect this (a very common problem)? There's no clearly correct answer.

If you don't get any better responses, try using this as a starting point:

https://hcr.ny.gov/ml

Hi My condo has to do a roof replacement. What is the best way to get it done? Design built or traditional? Anyone dealt with this issue as a board. Open to all suggestions. Thanks!!