Interesting enough the general wording requires definition by way of policy that is well-known to all shareholders, i.e., resolution that is distributed. First thing that comes to mind is being current in your maintenance. It's up to the Board to define if good standing means being current for 12 months, 6-months, etc.

Living in the co-op or litigating is not part of being in good standing. A person who elects not to live in his/her unit for any reason or no reason at all should not be deemed an uninterested party of his/her investment. There are doubts that absentee shareholders are familiar with everyday issues of the co-op and consequently, the general thinking is that it is best to exclude these shareholders from office.

Shareholders with outstanding litigation or even insurance claims: Anyone has the right to start a legal action or even claim from insurance if they believe that there are grounds for litigating and if all recourse has been depleted to sway the opinion of the Board. If the person is elected, then there is such thing as being excluded when dealing with the litigation in question. Obviously, many shareholders may feel that this poses a conflict of interest. A disclosure of this litigation should be known by sharholders before their vote.

AdC

unless your bylaws have wording that decides who can run for office, anyone over the age of 18 can run and get on the BOD.
Your building is already ahead of that curve, by requiring that they be a shareholder, and a member in good standing.
Some buildings require that the shareholder be a full time resident, that would also be in the by-laws

There have been instances where Board Members brought actions against other Members. They were still considered in Good Standing. It's according to the issue at hand.

A shareholder cannot have his right to vote removed under any circumstances.
Your bylaws should have some sort of general guidelines on who is eligible to run for election.
In Good Standing would mean that the shareholder does not owe the corporation any money. ( that's zero $0)

If you feel that your bylaws have too many loopholes, you can amend them with a majority vote.
For example, a clause requiring a shareholder to reside in the building to be eligible.

In no way challenging right to vote, but rather asking about good standing and running for office if in arears, if lawsuit outstanding, etc.
....
So challenging voting rights are off the table...
...
But, can ya review and perhaps embellish your response....thanks?

You are correct.

Years ago I had the same problem in a building. Have the management company contact the buildings attorney and have the shareholder served with a notice informing them that time is of the essence and that by delaying access to the apartment they could and will be held responsible for damages.

Good luck!

This is exactly what must be done... A certified letter to the SH informing them that they are in breach of the Proprietary Lease Agreement and access must be provided to make necessary repairs. Any denial of said access will result in additional damages that will be charged directly to their account.

(And since they are selling it is good timing to ensure you are getting paid as they can not close otherwise)


~AR

I agree with Mike, but I would also add make sure you have done your homework and you are sure that the leak is coming from that particular apartment. It is no good ripping up the floor to find out the leak was further up the riser etc. Also document the work and take photos

Happy hunting,
MRM

I agree with Mike and MRM about the floor repair. Also, if the leak comes from inside walls and isn't caused by fault or negligence from the apt above, I believe it would be the coop's responsibility to repair it and the damaged floors of the shareholder who's trying to sell. If so, all the repairs should be made quickly, and I wouldn't see why the selling shareholder should object to this. He might get new flooring that would add value to his apt.

The resident with the water damage, has anyone thought about opening walls and running the water from the apartment above to see if in fact it is coming from the apartment above? I assume the wall/ceiling have water damage open up that ceiling and have your staff or even better the pro come in to do complete inspection. E-mail me i you have any questions.

Yes I did mention in a previous post to troubleshoot all areas first.

ARA

I had a building exactly like this!
They were even wanting to fine people $1000 for loitering in the halls!!

What I did was contact a few X board members that i would like to see replace them and them asked them to please run for the Board at the upcoming annual.
Obviously since the current Board members were a building nuisance, they were not re-elected and the building was at peace again.

Good Luck!
~AR

Following up on socialistic boards? I have one that want everyone to obey the "house rules", the staff to enforce them, while you guessed it, the biggest offenders/violators are the board. The board then look to descipline the staff for not being able to enforce the rules..

Should we call in the national guard.

Go figure, RMM

Gee, that sounds like my building, although I do believe House Rules should be enforced, that's protection for all and hopefully everyone wants to live in a good environment. When House Rules are tossed out, we just might become a Project. I wouldn't think anyone wants that.

Why would you want people hanging out in the Lobby? A lobby is an ingress and egress. Wouldn't you or anyone want to live in a place where standards are brought up NOT down? That's the object of a co-op, more exclusivity than a rental. If that's the way people want to live, why not stay in a rental. It seems a GOOD rental has more control. Explain.

If any shareholder including Board Members see actions by visitors (non-residents) that are abusive, beligerent and giving a guard/door person a difficult time then there is no problem in that Board Member or shareholder to step in. Security is a major issue for all living there and non-residents acting up would be cause to step in to protect oneself and others. As for a nuisance holdover, there is no basis, especially if - once again - the issue is a non-resident being under the influence and/or causing a problem.

I might add something to Anonymous 1's statement - if the person acting up is a non-resident and was asked to leave, that could be cause for Trespassing. So the action of a Nuisance Holdover (whatever that is) would be VOID!

if someone is visiting a resident in the building, i don't see how they could be charged with trespassing. There was no mention in any of the OP posts concerning their conduct, so speculation, is pretty unwarranted.

it is so easy to video tape people in the hallways, so evidence of improper conduct would be pretty easily obtained, and that would solve the 3 side to a story,
i have a netcam where my door viewfinder was.
i remember i sticky situation in my building where a woman got a Order of protection against her x boyfriend, who really was and is a nut and was and is very dangerous. The cops said they couldn't keep him out of the building , since he had 3 relatives that lived there n 3 different apartments, and he had to walk by her door to get to the elevator. unless the relatives signed that he wasn't allowed in, he had the right to visit. the relatives were too scared of what he might do if they signed, so they didn't sign anything,

If your statement is true and as you said no action has been taken concerning the two board members would it be possible that they are acting within the guide-lines of the house rules?

If the guest(s) visiting the resident are following the house rules I don't see why this person would have to be questioned. Unless they are not acting within reason than the proper steps should be taken by security.

What what CMJ described, these two board members are interrogating (his word) visitors in general. Since not even police can compel you to give more than than your identification, these board members are clearly acting in an unjustifiable manner.

Being on a board doesn't give them, outside the board room, any powers that other shareholders don't have. And as shareholders, they have no right to interrogate other shareholders' guests.

As CMJ said, the co-op has security personnel tasked with preventing trespassers and keeping the peace on this private property. In this case, aside from board members acting arrogantly, you have a case of shareholders creating a nuisance to other shareholders.

Bottom line: Being a board member does not allow you to behave in a way that other shareholders cannot behave.

As you stated if what CMJ states is factual, when non-residents,guests enter a building and are causing a problem for the guard/door person any shareholder board member (who is also a shareholder) when noticing that the guard/door person is having a difficult time has a right to protect themselves as well as the building for others who live there. If the shareholder speaks to the guard/door person with NO interaction with the guest (which is not known at this juncture) and the guest was asked to leave again, that can be considered as Trespassing. If this guest is not a shareholder, not on a lease and being disruptive any shareholder or board member can advise the guard/door person to seek help and/or file a complaint. This is not exclusive to board members as stated any shareholder concerned about where they live.

I must agree with one thing. Has anyone heard from the other side or just from what is being told by one side? Always remember, there are 3 sides to every issue, "Yours, mine and somewhere in the middle is the truth". That being said a Nuisance Holdover is invalid in this instance. Basically a Nuisance Holdover is for a Noise issue, non-compliance with pets, sublet issues, disruption to other shareholders i.e. legal tenants. If security has done what he/she had to do in compliance with the rules, by calling the Tenant (and no one answering)or Tenant did not want guest to go up, the security would relay that, if further disagreement happens that further steps should be taken to make sure guest leaves, if guest then refuses and any legal tenant or board member (legal tenant) observes this, there is no problem in advising security to either file a complaint or seek legal remomval. No one can be sure what a person causing a problem can and may do. I am of the belief that any Tenant (legal) should protect their living quarters from any problem that may and can lead to something bigger, whether it be an intense argument (screaming) or anything else that might erupt.

The original post from CMJ? stated that the people being questioned by shareholders were guests as opposed to someone walking in "to case" the area. There is a world of difference. While I believe we should all be vigilant let the staff you hired take care of these issues.(well trained staff are your eyes and ears). I have personally witnessed shareholders who had no business whatsoever questining individuals sitting quietly in our lobby as to who/why they were here. If you fit "certain profiles" you are liable to be questioned.This is embarrassing and wrong....

How do any of us know if the Guest was questioned? Possibly the Tenant (Legal) just spoke to the Security. We are just looking at it from CMJ's point of view. That's the issue. A legal Tenant or board member, who is also a legal Tenant, if seeing something that could escalate or someone not adhering to Security, I would think can speak with the Security. They do work for the building and the protection of such building and all legal Tenants.

I think we're getting our signals crossed. I don't see CMJ saying anything about the board members only dealing with problem visitors.

He's saying the board members take it upon themselves to interrogate whoever comes in.

He's also saying he considers this a problem, i.e., harassing fellow shareholders' guests.

We don't know if that's factual? We have not heard the other side. Anyone can say anything, not necessarily what actually is. Thereby, all of this back and forth on this issue can be a moot point. Do we actually know EVERYONE who comes into the building is Interrogated? Of course not. Are these Tenants/Board Members standing by the front door waiting for people/guests to come in to jump on them. I find that a little beyond comprehensive.

CMJ never identified by building, so what's beyond comprehension is why he would lie about it. He wanted to get advice about a situation as he perceived it -- he's not trying to score public-opinion points.

Your tactic of exaggeration is typical of those who don't have a leg to stand on via logic. "standing by the front door waiting...to jump on" guests? Please. We all know board members can behave autocratically. We all know people with a little power can abuse it. (DMV clerks, anyone?) I'd have to wonder if you're not one of the board members CMJ labels as a "nuisance."

You sound like you are a friend of CMJ's. Is that so? I responded because it seems like many answers to what was stated seem to be listening to something that is not even confirmed by any other person. None of us, including you JB, really know the issue at hand, just a comment from someone. Correct a little power can be abused, do we know if the question posed or issue discussed is not from someone who is doing that same thing?

I've no connection to CMJ or even know what the initials stand for. I'm operating strictly from what he or she is saying.

CMJ has no reason to lie -- it's an anonymous setting, where none of us know what building it is or who is involved. As far as any of us on the outside are concerned, it's a hypothetical situation -- and you attack the person proposing it.

CMJ came here seeking help -- and instead you impugn the victim's motives. If you don't believe he/she's telling the truth, why comment at all? CMJ was only asking for advice; if you didn't have any ... well, one wonders what your motivation could be in attacking CMJ.

JB get a grip

I agree with what you stated, none of us know the situation. I am playing Devils Advocate, how do any of us know any situation. Don't know CMJ either, I'm looking at it from a different prospective, a what if - if that makes any sense. Anyone can ask any question that choose to, but that particular issue seemed like certain people were being attacked and none of us know what is real and what isn't, what is fact and what isn't. All the answers seemed to advise in a derogatory fashion. It would be great if all knew all circumstances. Every one asks questions on their preception, doesn't mean they are lying but sometimes all is not factual.

While I am not an expert,I would think the pay scale would be a reflection on how much you value your employee and the responsibilities he/she has. I know some non union supers making more than unionised supers. I guess if you were to give specifics regarding the property ie, number of units, staff, A/C system, heat system etc.. one could then give an educated guess.

RMM.

Live-in Part-time super 2-3 hours day. 32 unit in Brooklyn. Basic cleaning, maintenance and repair. 24/7 on-call

For similar supers we pay 18-23K per year plus the basic benefits (housing, utilities, phone, vacation and sick pay)

Im Manhattan the salary would be more like 28-32K

~AR

Sally as I understand it in a Coop you own shares so that does not entitle one to do as they please when renovating. I would ask the neighbour if you could see their "approved" architectial drawings for the renovation project before agreeing to anything. The size/operation of the new duct/vent may also have an effect on the mechanicals of the building as it may off balance the system. I would also suggest running it by your super/managing company.

MRM

Sally I agree with Manhattan RM regarding the building exhaust duct work. If they are renovating their bathroom they should have a approved alteration package. In the package should be the requirements for the upgrade for the duct opening if they allow it.

The size/operation of the new duct/vent may also have an effect on the other apartments in that line. In some apartments the air would push in instead of out, throwing the system out of sync.

Mike good to know you agree with me. One of your buddies in the field that speaks highly of you.

ARM

HI Mike - The renovating resident just found out it is a working vent. the super , who does not know much, had told the arthitect it was a dead vent.
it physically runs though the revnovators apt - it is very old but works fine. if they are renovating and wanot shrink it down (it is huge) - which neighbor should pay????

If the management company/board of directors approve of the downsizing of the opening, then the shareholder doing the renovation should pay for the new vent cover. I don't see where the building or other shareholders would have to pay for something that a shareholder is changing inside their apartment? If it is working properly, I would keep it on record that all apartments are working fine and if they do change the size of the opening and their is some problems with the vent, then I would have them pay for any and all expenses to correct the problem(s).

Sorry about that I responded the question.

Sorry about that I responded the question.

Hi Mike - thanks. it is not the vent cover - it is the entire vent compartment. very old. runs though the neighbors interior space. they are renovating and claim it must be brought to code. and that we should contribute$.

Okay, if the vent is working properly and the shareholder who wants to renovate his/her apartment should be responsible for the expenses. The other shareholder didn't want to change the vent? Why should they pay?

You are not responsible for maintaining or bringing back to "code" any structure owned by the coop and certainly not the ones located in your neighbors apt.

Even if your property lease had a paragraph stating that shareholders were responsible for the maintenance of those vents ( which I doubt ) .... that would not cover the vent next door.

How should board (eventually shareholders) handle a president who engaged a company to remove asbetos without proper certification? None of the safeguards were applied? including having the employees help with the removal. There is an open violation and when EPA comes back they will want to see that all paperwork was correctly filed. We are going to be faced with massive penalties.

HabitatReporter here again, with another opinion from Ellen Kornfeld of the Lovett Group. Ms. Kornfeld writes,

"If a Board member or Officer of the co-op engages a company to remove asbestos by a non-certified company, the questions we have are, did the other board members or managing agent know about this, and were other bids obtained for the project by certified companies? If the answer is no to both of these questions, I would ask for the President's resignation. The Board President did not conduct himself as a fiduciary and not only violated building code and EPA rules, they also exposed their employees to asbestos and could be faced with lawsuits down the road. The Director's and Officer's liability insurance would most likely not elect to cover the board should a suit be brought due to the failure to adhere to EPA requirements. It is for this reason that the board should require the President's resignation because the D & O coverage could be in jeopardy if someone were to sue the coop. D & O coverage would not cover acts of a President if they were illegal."

Several other bids from certified companies were solicited by management. President at board meeting came in with a significantly lower proposal. Board and managing agent became aware that work had been completed when agent sent another certified company to bid on the project. They in turn notified agent that work had been completed. When management asked if the appropriate paper work for asbestos removal was completed president replied yes. Yet to date has not been able to produce it and insists that remodeling company has licensed. A board member contacted the state and company is not licensed to remove asbestos and is now out of business. Majority of board members are not concerned yet managing agent says we are due for hefty daily fines as this is an open violation. Do shareholders have recourse against the board as a whole, if these fines are imposed?. What about the staff that I have recently learned were also part of the removal of debris?

In the end, if the Board made a conscious decision to use an unlicensed company, there is negligence. Your in a predicament, but not one that cannot be fixed. Fines are heafty... Was there an ACP-5 or 7 done?

Unfortunately the information required to accomplish this is a lot more than can be transferred through a post and some things with this type of liability should not be posted.

I do not usually do this, but I included a link to my email above and would be willing to talk with you concerning this and let you know what actions some other people in similar situation have or would have done.

~AR

AR: would love to speak with you! no email was in your respose.

Sorry I did not respond sooner, I have been on vacation (finally!)

Please feel free to email me at REAPLLC@aol.com
Anthony

You're a welcome addition. My question revolves around a contractor who worked without any authorization from the Board. We had urgent work to be done on our roof, put it out for bids, his was $4,000. I asked the management agent to get his proposal in writing. The next we heard, the superintendent (who is new & on probation) gave him access, and he did the work. The mgt agent said he must have thought it was an "OK" to do the work because she asked for a written proposal. We all know that that's malarky, but how do we handle this?

It's a 2-pronged job, he started both at the same time, and he's still on the 2nd part. We had our engineer check his work and the engineer required he modify what he's done before completing it.

Thank you for your input.

HabitatReporter here, with an expert opinion from Ellen Kornfeld, representing the Lovett Group. She says,

"If a contractor were to work on any property we manage without approval or written authorization, that contractor would not be paid for their services. The Superintendent should have checked with management to make sure the contractor was permitted to work and that the managing agent had an insurance certificate naming the building and the managing agent as additional insured before giving them access. When did the managing agent find out they were working without a contract and who put it out to bid (managing agent or engineer)? Since the Superintendent is new, what experience did he have being a Superintendent? Certainly, the Superintendent knows the difference between a contract and a proposal if he worked in this industry before. This incident would make me question the Super and his ability to handle affairs at the building and I would consider letting him go before the probation. I would be concerned that the contractor took it upon himself to determine what needed repair. If it were my property, the contractor would be charged for the cost of having the building's engineer inspect and review the work and for any re-inspections needed for changes that have to be made."

www.twitter.com/habitatmag

Thank you very much for this important information. I'm going to share it with the full Board of Directors when we meet next week.

To answer your questions, the managing agent put it out to bids. When I heard the bid I asked management to have the contractor give us a written proposal. The next communication from her was that the work was already done but that it was just as well because "it needed to be done". The superintendent is on probation with us but has several years of experience working for a rental building (and still working there after his full day here). The sup't. showed the contractor the job, and then according to management, allowed him access to do the work without clearing it with them. I doubt that management has an insurance certificate because it was done without being put into writing, but will check into that.

Thank you too for your suggestion to charge the contractor for the engineer's examination & follow-ups of his work. (I'd asked management to ask the engineer to check it to examine the quality of the work.)

- Can an In-House Managing Agent in a small Co-op (who with spouse owns 60% of the Shares) vote to hire themselves for pay?

- Can this pay be in the form of a 50% maintenance reduction? If so, should this considered taxable income, and as such, a deduction on the Co-op's tax burden?

Myself and the other Shareholders believe this situation is a violation of the Business Judgement Rule and have voted to hire an independent Managing Agent. The current Managing Agent/Shareholder has sued us to block it. Our case is in Court now, and we suspect the outcome may be of interest to your readers.

Our Board recently changed insurance brokers and they got us a better general liability insurance policy with an A+ rated company, (our management company's insurance company was A-), including all the coverage we had and more, and a 37% reduction in premium. Our previous premium was based on group experience; our new premium is individually rated. I recommend you contact HUB International Northeast. They coordinated all of our policies so that now we have one common expiration date, and our premium no longer needs to be financed by a bank (of course that cost more too).

Does Board Talk also allow me to give the individual broker's name & phone number?

Thank you very much for the reply.

Similar topic: we have about a $14 million replacement value. The Board is discussing earthquake coverage. Our current limit is $1 million which seems too low. We have three buildings with interior steel supports & wood studs but with masonry exteriors (cement block covered with brick). What are other co-ops using as a guide for earthquake coverage: 100% of replacement value; 75%; 50%?

Thanks!

Just saw your post, i also used to be with Hub and i was very happy with them until i met Izzy Green from evergreen insurance, i was really amazed by their service and honesty, and i switched all our policies to them. they have great relationship with the underwriters and they negotiated a great deal.

You might find this artical interesting http://ezinearticles.com/?What-a-Co-Op-or-Condo-Board-Member-Should-Know-About-Insurance&id=6244340

You can also contact me @ 845-789-4433 X 102.

It depends on the amount of paperwork and time.
I would say anywhere between $500 to $1200.

It's a simple transfer of shares.

As a shareholder, you can call your corporate attorney and request a quote.

DOES FLIP TAX APPLY WHEN ONE SPOUSE BUYS OUT THE OTHER?

Check your proprietary lease. Ours (probably pretty standard during the era -- early 1980s) says that an assignment or transfer to the shareholder's spouse does not even have to be authorized by the Directors. I suspect that this means there is no flip tax due either. In addition, a flip tax would be hard to support rationally if the buying spouse had been living in the apartment for some time.

same here, spouses and same sex couples have the right to occupy the apartment without the shareholder or if the shareholder predecease them. IT is in my proprietary least right around par 14, those paragraphs deal with occupancy

Hi! HabitatReporter here, with an expert opinion from one of our co-op and condo attorneys. According to Arthur I. Weinstein, Esq.,

"Aside from the cost of your own attorney, most co-ops charge transfer fees ranging from $450-$1000 to do the paperwork necessary to transfer ownership to you. The question of the applicability of the flip tax depends entirely on the language of the flip tax that the building has adopted, and there is no answer applicable to all flip taxes. You may also be required to file New York State and New York City real property transfer tax returns. You should consult your individual attorney as to the applicability of those taxes and the methods of calculating the amounts due."

Both board members should recuse themselves from the sales application. The parent, obviously, and the family friend because a personal and longstanding relationship exists.

Regarding your pet policy...do your rules state clearly NO PETS or do they define the pets. I.e. some buildings allow cats but not dogs. If your rules clearly say no pets whatsoever, regardless of how long the cat will last, they shouldn't submit an application. By allowing the application and/or pet, you will be setting a precedent.

Thank you for the confirmation!

The board can make an exception and allow the cat if it wishes -- it's not like a court of law where it sets a legal precedent.

There may be political or policy questions, but that's different from law. If the board can provide a justifiable reason for making an exception, e.g., it's a quiet indoor pet with likely little time to live, then it can do so under the Business Judgment Rule.

The idea of setting a legal precedent does not apply within the corporate boardroom.

JB, I presume you're not proffering this as legal advice...

if the Board has a no-pet policy, then makes an exception for one "connected" individual, that opens a whole 'nuther can of worms.

And that'll set a precedent, for sure.

Althouth I would be tempted to vote for the anamial, RLM is right, if I lived in your building, and you allowed a pet, I would run right out and adopt a puppy. Also, there is the favortism issue.
You will undermind the house rules and set a precedent.

We allow pets, limited to two, and believe that it fosters a much more neighborly building. I have watched people become happier, social and friendly after adopting a pet.
VP

I'm not sure my fellow board-members read me carefully.

I did say there would be political ramifications if you made an exception.

But I reiterate: There would be NO LEGAL PRECEDENT. A corporate board is NOT a court of law. ONLY COURTS set legal precedent. A corporate board CAN make exceptions if, in its view, there are legitimate reasons for doing so.

One person here sarcastically asked if I a offering legal advice. There's no need for sarcasm, particularly over semantics. I'm repeating what attorneys have said in print. Is that legal advice? Well, it's about the law. And you could call it advice or suggestion or, as I would, reportage. Being sarcastic muddies the issue, which is only necessary to do if one can't make one's point with logic.

Anyway, we're getting off-point. A board is prefectly entitled to make an exception for -- depending on the case, and not necessarily speaking of this case in particular -- humanitarian, long-term, emergency or strategic reasons, along with a half-dozen other valid reasons any reasonably intelligent person could name.

Will there be policy repercussions? That depends, as much of politics does, on how you present it. And in the case of an elderly cat -- which, unlike a dog, doesn't bark -- I can imagine being able to make a case based on compassion. That's a component of what is called, seriously, in legal terms "good will" -- which is so tangible a component that for tax and valuation reasons, it is considered part of a corporation's worth.

And even aside from this, a corporation needs flexibility to make nimble decisions. I'm not sure if affects the corporate bottom line any more to say "euthanize your quiet cat" than to say "we're making an exception on compassionate grounds." (Of course, if you have a howling cat, thereby interfering with neighbors' "quiet enjoyment" of their domicile, then you certainly have a hard decision to make on quality-of-life grounds.)

No good corporation lasts with rigid inflexibility. That's been the downfall of many a company.

While I agree with you in principal I must say that my years of experience in this industry would lead me to not make an exception. I have been a victim/sacraficial lamb many times over for using what I call common sence. Unfortunately the saying no good deed goes unpunished is all too common in this industry. I respect your compassion here but sad to say the world we live in has changed for the worst.

MRM

If it's a policy, there is no precedent.
If it's in the bylaws or property lease, there is one.

One must ask himself what is intended with a "no pet policy": noise, odors, hygiene ...
And what does pet include: dog, cat, a golden fish or bird.

You can't reject an application because of a pet. You have no way of defending this decision in front of a judge ... should the applicant go that far.

SaL states that an applications cannot be denied because of a pet! The Corp policy states No Pets, so if the applicant has a pet of any age/condition and wishes to bring it with them-why can't the Board reject?

RE: >> "If it's in the bylaws or property lease, there is [precedent]."

I don't know how else to say this: NO, there is NOT.

Corporate boards are NOT courts of law. Only courts of law can establish legal precedent. Co-op boards are not courts! Only courts can set precedents! How much more simply can this be explained?!

The board CAN reject. The point is, it isn't REQUIRED to reject. See my just-posted response to CDT.

Bear in mind, I'm someone who likes living in a no-dob building, so I'm not arguing from the standpoint of a pet fanatic. I just hate seeing armchair attorneys talking about "precedent" without fully understanding what it means. Too many episodes of "Law & Order," I guess.

This gets me curious, though, as to why a blanket no-pets policy. I'm wondering what the rationale is to ban goldfish, hamsters and turtles, say, not to mention cats, which for all their faults are usually quiet and don't need to be taken out on the grounds or elevators. But goldfish? Really?

Above should read "no-dog building," not "no-dob building." Which is funny, since "dob" is the initials of the Department of Buildings...!

I believe all these legal issues began many years ago when an older grey bearded man had two of each animal as pets on his property. He kept them even during times of heavy rain and floods.

Noah

For goodness' sakes, get over yourselves. A co-op board is not a court of law. It's a board room. You are not setting legal precedents even internally.

So why post the question in the first place. All people did was take time out to try and help. Am I missing something here.

Bob

Because it's factually incorrect to say it sets "a precedent," and gives bad, bad advice to the person who asked. Self-important board members act like they're Supreme Court justices and their decisions set "precedents." We're corporate boards, and a good corporate board is nimble and flexible and deals with individual situations in the best long-term interests of the corporation.

We are ALLOWED to make exceptions when need be. All we have to do is justify them on reasonable grounds, and if need be deal with the political fallout, if any.

And in this particular case, the thing to do is make an exception based on compassionate grounds. If the cat in its dotage then starts howling (which the initial questioner did not indicate was the case), then it becomes an issue of noise that would be dealt with the same as with someone's noisy TV. All these people saying, "No, no, no! That would set a PRECEDENT!" are giving bad, factually inaccurate "advice." I don't think there's anything there's anything wrong with thinking before we speak, or maybe doing a little research before giving advice.

So I guess you just answered your own question then? Best of luck with whatever you decide

Bob.

West City Board Member originally wrote:
>Finally, the son has a cat (old-not going to last
>too long-so they say) but we have a no pet policy.

This statement precipitated one of the odder discussions I've seen on this board in awhile. A few comments:

(1) You are completely within your rights to reject the application on this basis alone. You have a No Pets policy and the guy has a pet. What could be more clear-cut? Other than the 14 protected classes we all know about, you can reject an application for any reason whatsoever, so long as you're consistent.

(2) On that note, consistency is the key. If you let in some people with pets but not others, and you have no clearly defined standards, you're in trouble. You will effectively render your pet policy unenforceable because you're required to treat everyone even-handedly, and you're not.

(3) Once you let in one pet for a vague reason (not a medical one), you've set a precedent. Yes, a precedent! No, JB, of course not a "legal precedent" in the sense of a formal legal decision, but a precedent in the colloquial sense: "An example that is used to justify similar occurrences at a later time." If you let in one guy with an old cat on the grounds of compassion, you've just set a precedent *for your building* and you're stuck with it.

(By the way, our building has never had a No Pets policy and is not considering one.)

If a "precedent" isn't a "legal precedent" then it HAS NO FORCE OF LAW.

If it has no force of law, then you are NOT stuck with it.

I know most board members haven't previously served on corporate boards -- which is what a co-op board is -- but a board is allowed to, and often does, make nimble, flexible decisions that can involve reasonable exceptions to past policy.

Then it becomes a political issue -- but it's not a legal issue.

As long as the board can show it's acting in the best long-term interests of the corporation, is not enriching itself, and it not arbitrarily favoring one shareholder over another, "A board can decide to not enforce a rule," according to attorney Joseph G. Colbert, a partner at Kagan Lubic Lepper Lewis Gold & Colbert, and an adjunct professor at St. John's University School of Law, quoted right here on the Habitat site. Speaking about house rules and bylaws that the board passed, and not amendments to the article of incorporation, "the board, like any political body, can interpret when these rules can be enforced, subject of the approval or disapproval of the residents."

Just because a board gives exception to a quiet, aged cat on defensible grounds doesn't mean it's legally required to allow someone to keep three snarling pit bulls.

JB wrote:
>If a "precedent" isn't a "legal precedent" then it HAS NO FORCE OF LAW.

Who's talking about "force of law"? We're talking about the requirement to treat all shareholders even-handedly.

>If it has no force of law, then you are NOT stuck with it.

Of course you are. From the moment you allow one shareholder to move in with an aging pet for compassionate reasons, every new shareholder from then on will demand exactly the same exception for *their* aging pets. And they will be correct to do so.

>I know most board members haven't previously served on corporate boards
>-- which is what a co-op board is -- but a board is allowed to, and often
>does, make nimble, flexible decisions that can involve reasonable
>exceptions to past policy.

Yes, reasonable. And consistent. And not arbitrary. If you make an exception, you're implicitly agreeing to make the same exception for other shareholders in the same circumstances.

>Then it becomes a political issue -- but it's not a legal issue.

But it *becomes* a legal issue if someone challenges the decision for being capricious and arbitrary. ("You let in his aging pet; now you gotta let in mine!")

>As long as the board can show it's acting in the best long-term interests
>of the corporation, is not enriching itself, and it ***not arbitrarily
>favoring one shareholder over another,***

Aha! You found it! If you allow one person to move in with an aging pet, but not ALL such people, you are indeed "arbitrarily favoring one shareholder over another."

>"A board can decide to not enforce a rule," according to attorney
>Joseph G. Colbert, a partner at Kagan Lubic Lepper Lewis Gold & Colbert,
>[...] "the board, like any political body, can interpret when these rules
>can be enforced, subject of the approval or disapproval of the residents."

Sure, absolutely true. But as you yourself noted above, the board can't arbitrarily favor one shareholder over another when deciding whether to enforce a rule.

>Just because a board gives exception to a quiet, aged cat on defensible
>grounds doesn't mean it's legally required to allow someone to keep three
>snarling pit bulls.

Naturally. But it does mean you're going to be stuck with allowing quiet, aging cats because you've set that precedent. And from a practical standpoint, I'd guess you're going to start getting complaints from people who want to keep quiet, aging dogs as well.

On top of all this, the original poster noted that the prospective shareholder is the son of a board member. To avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest, the board needs to be exceptionally careful to define precisely why an exception is being made.

First you say

>>Who's talking about "force of law"? We're talking about the requirement to treat all shareholders even-handedly. [If it has no force of law, then you are NOT stuck with it.] Of course you are.

No. If it's not force of law, how can you be stuck with it?

No one can make you stuck with anything unless there's force of law behind it.

And as I've repeatedly said, it's not "arbitrary" if you give a justifiable business reason that doesn't violate the law regarding self-interest, etc. As I've also said good will is a tangible corporate asset.

RE: >>it *becomes* a legal issue if someone challenges the decision

Anybody can sue anybody else over anything. That doesn't mean the law is on their side or that they have a case. I can think of a dozen reasons off the top of my head that two situations with quiet, aging cats could lead to completely opposite decisions. I'm sure you could, too.

Only courts can set legal precedent. Not corporate boards. We're doing a disservice to co-op boards by giving them the false impression that they cannot make nuanced, flexible decisions when need be for the long-term good of the co-op.

I think the best example of that may be the board maybe three years ago that demanded a shareholder remove a small U.S. flag magnet from his door, put up in the wake of 9/11, citing co-op rules. This became a cause celebre that embarrassed the co-op on TV and in national newspapers, affected potential buyers' perception of the co-op, etc. -- all bad things for the long-term business of the corporation. The board eventually came up with -- you guessed it -- a nuanced, flexible response that solved everyone's problems. THAT'S what we should be encouraging boards to do, and not simply make unthinking, kneejerk decisions out of fear of some non-existent "precedent."

I'd love to know what you think of the above example.

I think we should move on to another topic. The horse is dead...

Bob

It's interesting that you bring up the Willoughby Walk case, as it illustrates precisely the points I've been making. The case is pretty much as you describe it: a guy had had a flag magnet on his door for years, but one day the board decided to start enforcing their "No decorations on doors" rule and ordered him to take it down.

Predictable embarrassment resulted. The board knew they couldn't just say, "Okay, THIS guy can have his flag magnet, but no one else can have any door decorations!" This would favor one shareholder over another, which is both intrinsically unfair and a violation of NY BCL Sec. 501(c).

The solution that the board devised was anything but "nuanced and flexible" -- that's exactly what you *don't* want when crafting an exception to a rule. You want the exception to be as unambiguous and precise as possible, since you're obligated to make the same exception for ANY shareholder under the same circumstances. In this case, the board simply grandfathered in any door decorations that were more than five years old. The exception applied to ALL shareholders, as required.

I think we may be saying the same thing at this point, and semantics is getting in the way.

"Nuanced" MEANS "unambiguous and precise." Nuanced is the OPPOSITE of "vague and overly broad."

JB wrote:
>"Nuanced" MEANS "unambiguous and precise."

Hmmm, my sources say that "nuanced" means "possessed of multiple layers of detail, pattern, or meaning."

But in any case, I agree that we've pretty much exhausted the subject for now.

I don't know what source you're using, but Merriam-Webster defines it as

"a subtle distinction or variation"

Which is exactly what I was saying.

When co-op boards react like Pavlov's dogs and don't try to actually, y'know, LEAD by finding Solomonic, nuanced solutions to difficult issues, then they might as well by interns working off a yes/no checklist.

A creative solution for shareholder N is great, so long as the board realizes it will need to offer the same solution to shareholder N+1 under the same circumstances.

That's debatable. We can certainly agree to disagree.