Our board and our manager have contacted several of Habitat's advertisers over the past couple of years. Each was courteous and helpful, and our board ultiimately hired them both. One was a management company and the other the company advertising on your site now.

Our Board contacted, interviewed and ultimately hired a storage contractor from the advertisers in Habitat.

The magazine is an invaluable resource in more ways than one.

Thank you RLM and AJ Gregory. Your input is appreciated. Happy to hear your experiences were positive.

In our co-op the by-laws stipulate that the shareholder can be assessed attorney fees, period, win or lose.

But in some cases, the behavior, e.g.: contacting our attorney, contacting a supplier with whom we have a contract, etc., can, under certain circumstances, be deduced as tortuous interference. One needs to assess the situation to see if this behavior incurs the tortuous interference rules.

Yes, we have taken action against a shareholder who enters into such behavior.

Yes, we have imposed legal fees upon a shareholder under circumstances permitted by the by-laws.

Further, in our co-op, our attorney never answers a shareholder letter, unless the board is contacted and the board agrees. After all, one needs to understand that the attorney is the corporation’s attorney, not the shareholder’s attorney.

Hi, George,

Bill is correct. The corporate lawyer works for the corporation, i.e. the board. If a shareholder chooses to hire the lawyer on his/her own (and engaging a lawyer, at his/her office, in a legal question is in fact hiring a lawyer), then the shareholder should pay for the lawyer's time.

Look at it another way. If the board has an electrical firm they always hire to do electrical work, and I decide to call that electrical firm to re-wire my apartment, who should pay -- the co-op or me?

Think of it this way. If the shareholder turns up her/his nose and chooses not to pay, who does? The shareholder AND every other shareholder in the building! (That's because the co-op's income comes from shareholders paying their maintenance fees.) If I lived in your building, I most definitely would NOT want to pay for my neighbor's legal questions!

If shareholders were free to contact the board lawyer without paying the legal fees, any shareholder who wanted "free" legal advice would do the same thing. Of course, it's not free, because the board would have to raise your maintenance fee to cover the dramatically increased legal bills.


On another point, allow me to clarify a misunderstanding in your posting, George, You write that a board "must follow the ... house rules." Well, yes, but the board is the group that sets the house rules, so it's really a moot point -- especially since the house rules cover residents. It's the bylaws that cover the board. I would also suggest that neither of these is one of the "basic legal obligations" of the board. The single and paramount obligation of any board is its fiduciary duty to the owners. Wouldn't you agree?

Hi there's no free lunch:

Since the coop's attorney freely engaged in communicating with a shareholder without disclosing any potential fee associated then the shareholder is not responsible. Too, there are no provisions in the governing documents and at the last shareholders meeting an amendment was shot down to cover such activity. The coop's attorney was responsible in declaring that he does not represent shareholders and needs to get board approval to engage in corresponding with a shareholder. None of this was done so it is a matter strictly between the attorney and the board to work out compensation.

Read: Recovering legal fees, by Bruce Cholst, Esq. The Cooperator. "Another limitation set forth in the typical proprietary lease clause regarding collection of attorney's fees is that it does not allow the recovery of any attorney fees prior to the commencement of a formal action or proceeding. Thus any pre-action analysis, correspondence, etc would not be recoverable."

So you see the shareholder has no liability for legal fees especially when the attorney made it clear to the NYSBA that he billed the coop and not the shareholder.

Any additional thoughts on this?

GU

Hi, GU,

I stand by my previous response.

The exception to Bruce Cholst's point is this. There is no "action" taking place in the original commenter's note. Instead, the shareholder was, evidently, trying to get an alternate point across.

After all, if no individual shareholder is responsible for the fees associated with getting legal advice, then what's to stop all shareholders from doing so?

And remember that the individual shareholder, even if she isn't charged for the entire fee, will in fact end up paying for the legal fee: her maintenance check will go toward paying the bill, as will every other shareholder's maintenance.

The question is really this: does every shareholder chip in to pay for one person's legal bill, or does the individual? If I lived in the building, and if I hadn't agreed to let my neighbor ring up legal bills, I certainly wouldn't want to have to pay for them. Would you, GU?

Hi:
What's to stop shareholders from contacting the coop's attorney? Plain and simple: the attorney! From the start the attorney should disclose any cost associated with engaging in communication or simply not respond. Period.

In this instance, the Board might also fault the attorney for not contacting the Board immediately for instructions. He/she is responsible to the Board, and is hired/contracted with by the Board, not its individual Shareholders.

I'd advise the Board president/managing agent to try to work out a compromise with the attorney.

Of course -- the attorney should disclose fees, but maybe the attorney a) assumes that people who are sophisticated enough to buy real estate/invest in a co-op in NYC are also sophisticated enough to know that there's no such thing as a free lunch, and b) is motivated not to explain the free-lunch cliche because he has mortgage payments just like you and me. I mean, if there's a shareholder in this day & age who believes attorneys work for free, well, maybe this is the tough-love way to learn.

It's like I said before. If my co-op has a go-to electrician, and I call that electrician to re-wire my apartment, who should pay the bill? And if the electrician just assumes I know that I have to pay it and so doesn't explain it in advance, does that mean my neighbors should pay the bill instead?

I would say no, and I think my neighbors would too.

How ridiculous making assumptions on behalf of an attorney, totally speculative! And, if anyone employs an electrician an estimate on potential work is done.

Hi, George,

Allow me to point out that not all electricians in New York have the scruples you suggest, although I certainly wish each did. As I mentioned, the case of the electrician was meant as a figurative comparison. Estimate or not, would you want to pay your neighbor's electrical bill?

I don't want to get into a shouting match with you, George, so let me conclude this discussion by referring to my original reply to your question.

The fundamental obligation of any board is its fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders. Any board that charges the expenses that one shareholder racks up to all of its shareholders is treating all the others unfairly.

In the state of New York corporations are required by law to treat all shareholders equally. If your board allows one shareholder to charge her bill to her neighbors, the board must charge all individuals' expenses to all shareholders. If the board allows exceptions, it risks violating the law.

The attorney charged the coop, period!

Read your PL regarding "coop recovery of charges".

It is my personal opinion that recovery of charges may be a grey area in issues of repairs, since the co-op needs to resolve them to the greastest satisfaction possible and, in doing so, unavoidable legal charges may be incurred.

The process of resolving issues pertaining to co-op /shareholder responsibilities start IMMEDIATELY and as follows:

(1) When the incident takes place, the managing agent writes a report to all involved stating the facts and delcares who is responsible for the damages. The co-op attorney gets a cc for information only.

(2) If you do not get a letter within the first week of the icident, then YOU take the initiative to write the letter documenting the issues, who responded for the co-op, the day, and what you were told.

(3) Shareholders should communicate with the Board through the Management Agent for resolution if they do not agree with the letter received or what you were verbally told.

(4) Shareholders may even request to speak with the Baord at a monthly meeting to further explain the situation if no satisfactory answer is given.

(5) The board should follow the visit with the results of the deliberations and copy all the time the co-op attorney.

(6) If the shareholder is not in agreement and feels that he has the right, as it was expressed before, he/she should have hired its own attorney. A letter from the attorney representing the shareholder is important enough for the board to reconsider the case and actively engage the co-op attorney.

(7) The board reconsiders the matter with the co-op attorney and denies or accepets to pay for the issue. You pay your attorney, the co-op pays for its counsel. There is no recovery.

(8) No resolution: Then the shareholder may be free to start a court case at its own expense for repairs.

In such cases there are no charges that may be recovered because clarification of responsibilities and PL matters are being debated.

AdC

I have tremendous success using the services of Sammat Research Michael Gordon can be reached at (212)(212) 645-4496 or email at
samatt4@aol.com.

this is mean. why dont you just be nice?

You are joking right? I am one of the kindest Landlords in NY and have been told so by a judge on one occasion. This woman is doing something illegal under NYS law and as such is STEALING from the Landlord. She is not Rent Controlled, She is not elderly, She is not destitute, She is not handicapped...Now do you think this is mean?

Why evict a tenant because the apt she rents from you may not be her primary residence? Maybe it's a "good thing" if it isn't. How much damage or wear & tear can there be on your apt if she isn't there that often?

Anon - you said "this woman is doing something illegal under NYS law and as such is stealing from the landlord." If she's doing something illegal prove it, and prove how she's stealing from the landlord. But IF she isn't doing anything illegal, causing problems and is minding her own business, you think it isn't mean or unjustified to evict her just because she isn't elderly, destitute or handicapped? Sorry, but maybe I'm missing something here.

If your tenet is not paying NY taxes,,, you can evict! Otherwise you have to prove that this is not their primary res.

As far as being nice,,, This landlord is running a business and its one thing to be the owner, and anoter the renter.
Good luck..VP

People - Please stay on topic - I am not looking for your opinions and thoughts on this matter. I know the law, I know my business. I know what I can and must do.

All I asked for is references for the name and number of a good investigator who does Non Primary Residence Investigation.

I did not ask for a debate on the topic and what I should do with this woman. You apparently do not understand NYC Rent Stabilization law which is fine. I would not expect you to, just as I probably do not understand the intricacies and implications of what you do for a living either...

Did you call Mike Gordon? He's the right guy for what you need. Just ignore the other postings, they are trying to be helpful but really don't know what you are looking for.

Thanks Anon - will be calling Mr. Gordon today.

Thank you so much. This woman is impossible Peggy

Wouldn't the voter registration roll help? A person is supposed to be registered where his domicile is, i.e., his principal residence. Voter registration records are open to public inspection.

The scenario you mention (a board president having to sell his apartment to cover legal fees) isn't ringing any bells for me, but I'm interested in the question of boards being sued by shareholders for negligence/breach of warrant of habitability and would appreciate it if you would check back and let us know what you find out.

Officers generally have insurance to buffer them against such action. See, e.g.: http://www.cnyc.com/code/archive/conference/conference-sum04.htm

Also, here's a rather old article from the NYT that is not without interest: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE3DF103AF937A15757C0A96E948260&sec=&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Good luck and please keep us posted.

Broome v. Biondi, a sublet discrimination case, is the best-known example. Biondi's legal fees were covered, but he was held personally liable for the punitive damages, which insurance cannot cover under NY law. Biondi ended up selling his apartment to pay the six-figure punitive damages.

Ned, I would sit him down in the office and explain to him what he is doing is not permitted and that he is harassing the woman. I would suspend him and place a letter in his file, cc to the Union and RAB.

Bottom line is he must go! Start the paper trail.

in addition to what Mike said I would add, if she feels uncomfortable she should nt only wirte a letter but file a complaint with the police.
pg

I agree with Mike, and the Email/Paper trail is essential. But your Manag company should be involved. Usually the Mang company is in charge of the staff and they know the Union rules. Also the woman should speak up now, as oppose to when the problem is out of hand.

We had a similar problem and the EMan was transfered to another building... Perhaps our problem now workes in your building.....
VP

The person complaining should put it in writing, if it is a union bldg. any action taken against him might not hold up because you need proof of complaint. She might not be the only resident so be careful.This should not be tolerated and the most severe penalty allowable should be issued. Perhaps some educational training is in order.

RH

I am a Super/Resident Manager. What you need is a paper trail, this lady needs to go on the record and this person needs to be reprimanded for his indecent behaviors. I would do all i could to get this low life out of the building.

depands on how truly well managed your building is and staff are. It may be that they really are not that well supervised since a building manager is not on site except rarely. This really depends on a building though in an ideal world you are right. In our building the Super and staff is constantly doing private jobs in people's apartments during coop paid hours and the Board is hands off though it is not an ideal situation for obvious reasons. . what can we do?

Board members must always be above the fray.

Only if there is an imminent safety hazard should a board member intervene.

I’m on the board in my co-op.

If a light bulb fails, I notify the doorman. (But, I also notify the building manager as some workers tend not to report items.)

If a security guard is asleep, I will notify the supervisor and the building manager.

If a car speeds through the garage, I notify the building manager.

If a vendor creates a hazard or viuola6tes our policies, I’ll notify the building manager and if need be our security staff.

If the trash overflows the waste bin in the mailroom, I’ll notify the doorman and I’ll pass a note to the building manager.

If the building porters fail to put down mats in the elevators during inclement weather, I’ll notify the doorman and I’ll pass a note to the building manager.

I never chastise a resident. But, I’ll notify the doorman of an event and I’ll pass a note to the building manager.

Kindly note the behavior, e.g.: always notify someone.

Hope this helps.

The board's job is coop governance, not overseeing day to day operations in the building or disciplining residents.

If, however, a board member see something that needs repair or correction in the building, s/he should tell the super.

The super should supervise building staff and direct them on what to do but he or any maintenance staff member should be astute enough to replace a burned out lightbulb or sweep up a mess in a hallway without being told to do it.

If a board member sees that the super/staff aren't doing their job or taking proper care of the building, or knows that a specific resident is not complying with coop rules or causing problems, s/he should notify the managing agent.

To Barbara who said her super/staff do private jobs in apts during coop work hours and the board does nothing about it - your board should do something about it. I wouldn't want to know that our super/staff whose salary is money that I and all my fellow shareholders) paid in aren't working for it and are doubling their money on our time by doing jobs for some individuals.

In the last twenty years I have observed perfectly normal people joining the board only to become egotistical dictators. It’s incredible how a little power can transform someone.

I agree that correcting the staff and reminding SH to follow the rules should be taken care of by the Mang company. This removes the Board from being accused of having personal agendas and conflicts with neighbors.

We now have one BM (young and inexp) that issues orders, thinks he can ignore the bylaws, and insults BM who are older, successful and nice. He has been “reined in” and spoken to on three occasions – and for a while he behaves. We now work around him and ignore his ranting Emails – and personal (he hates his neighbor) agenda. The S/H are aware of his arrogance, and we hope he is not re-elected.

You can, as we did, have the most diplomatic BM speak with them and if that doesn’t work, have an intervention by the whole board. Good luck!
VP

After spending most of my adult life in residential property management it was a surprise to me when the newest group of elected board members decided it was time for new horizons. I guess having lasted for 20 years and 20 boards I had nothing to prove. I do have to admit when I took the job I did so with the full understanding that it was at my own peril. You have to admit being a property manager is more akin to managing the Mets than, I guess the manager of the Mets.

I guess the first thing I would like to say to my fellow managers is this, there is life after residential property management, for every co-op, or condo there is an office building, a shopping center, or a mall. These buildings also require skilled property managers, professionals who expect to be treated like a professional in a professional atmosphere.

Imagine just for a second, being answerable to a select few professional peers, not a jury of volunteers.

Steering the Buick back onto the road (and the point), the point being this, it is my expert opinion that the role of a board member is more often than not used for the building of ones ego rather than that of sound business practice. What is it they used to say on TV, only the names have been changed to protect the innocent? They say only a fool defends himself, I would assume even one more foolish would believe themselves to be the ultimate manager, doorman, handyman, and porter rapped up into one unit called (gulp), Board President.

What it boils down to this, a Board Member, Board President, Grand Puba or whatever you call him/her is an ADMINISTRATOR. For those who never passed Business 101, an ADMINSTRATOR deals with LONG TERM GOALS rather than DAY TO DAY operations.

I've only worked with one, for three years as Board President.

I had the utmost respect for the depth and breadth of her knowledge, the work ethic she brought to her job despite long hours and 24/7 availability to the multitude of buildings she managed, her sense of humor in crises, and her steadfast support of our co-op's short and long-term goals, no matter how hard or fast we were pushing.

Sorry to read you've been so mistreated.

Get all the shareholders together and vote these members off the board. They obviously do not know what they are doing or are supposed to do. Why not hold an early election and get new members who might actually handle themselves with professionalism?

Being that I am a full-time Super/Resident Manager. It is in the best interest of the building for the B/M to remain on the sidelines. Set up a maintenance committee or other committee's to address building concerns. We know how to operate and maintain the building, advice and suggestions are always welcomed. But who goes to the surgeon and tells him how to operate.

I would be interested in obtaining information on this if you can direct me.

Also, check out
http://REAPConsultingLLC.com
and click
The Future of Energy Management

~AR

I don't think this will be possible if the dogs are board approved pets and in residence. You may be establishing one for new pets, but then you won't collect $400. YOu'll have to wait many years for those dogs that currently live in the building die and are substituted by new ones. In such cases, a "no dogs" rule may be the best way to stop incontinence.

AdC

I agree with AdC. A no-dogs policy may be the only way to go. You said you have cameras in your elevators. Can you adjust them so the area closer to the floor where dogs are can be viewed? Or reposition them so you get an aerial view of the elevator that will include people and dogs. Also, what will you do if/when you find out whose dogs are peeing in the elevator? If you don't have a house rule with a fine in place for this, you should enact one.

Too bad you have to replace carpeting if that's what you prefer, but an elevator isn't the best place for it - too much foot traffic, the nap flattens and it wears quickly. Keep in mind that a rubber/vinyl floor covering won't be good if you have dogs peeing in the elevators. It's porous, dog urine will permeate it, and the odor will linger. Not very good, especially in a confined area like an elevator. If you replace the flooring, go with something that isn't porous, or you'll be replacing it often because of the odor (and staining too).