Your first call should have been to the co-op's attorney. There are several issues at play here which need to be discussed with the attorney and the Board.

1) Arrears - the shareholder is not living up to their legal financial obligation.
2) Hoarding - an issue that affects the health and safety of all shareholders, in
addition to the property value of the co-op.

The fact that you're an HDFC may affect the way that the Board can approach this delicate situation. Let attorney provide the needed legal guidance. You definitely don't want any legal missteps in this complicated situation.

Good luck and keep us posted.

Unfortunately, We too have the same problem! We called protective services and the exterminator. Yeah it was that bad. Protective Services were able to come in do an evaluation, and is getting him help mentally, and get someone to clean out apt. That does not help with the arrears. This is not the first time this happens, and we are looking to see what can be done in the future. He has no family we know of. We are still in the early stage. Don't really know just yet what is next. Thanks for the legal suggestion.

This podcast episode with a NYC attorney, Stephen Lasser is exactly what you're looking for:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/nyc-real-estate/id1316217394?i=1000615904697

*Usually*, a renovation begins with the signing of an alteration agreement. This is so the board and shareholder start out on the same page and the shareholder formally is made aware of the board's requirements and limitations for the renovation. From this point forward the renovation is governed by the terms of the alteration agreement and other policies in place.

*Sometimes*, with a very extensive renovation that can impact building services or the structure itself, an informal drawing or description is submitted ahead of the agreement, to make sure the board is okay with the work to be done before any more time and effort are spent.

The board can exercise its discretion, provided the board is mindful of its mandated responsibility for fairness and impartiality when making decisions.

Have they provided a reason for this behavior or have you or anyone else asked a board member for the reason behind this odd behavior?

I think in their heads it’s making money for the co-op but to me with all the added cost especially if you have to repair a unit to sell or buy it doesn’t add up. It’s making everyone rich on each sell right? Lawyer, agent etc.

So you find it odd too?

To me once in a blue mood a co-op has an opportunity to buy a unit but I also find it odd is if you want to raise the maintenance and talk about the economy etc to shareholders but yet we have enough money to buy units? Doesn’t make sense.

Almost sounds like a money-laundering scheme to me. If there's a large difference between a unit's purchase price and its selling price without any obvious reason for the difference, it could be a way of washing money or funneling money to the putative owner of the unit.

It could also be a way of goosing up the unit's price for comparable checks or loan collateral. This happened a lot during the 2008/2009 real estate market meltdown. Units would flip-flop between the same two owners, but each time the price would go up. Then it could be used as collateral for larger mortgages and other real estate-backed loans.

If you can, try to find out more about these transactions or speak to your co-op's attorney

Does your co-op own any units that they rent out and possibly sell at times when funds are needed?

That's an interesting question, Pooh. It it turns out to be true, it exposes the board to a whole new level pain - abrogation of the board's fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders.

Imagine a board needing to tell shareholders that an apartment the co-op bought for $500k is now worth only $400k when it needs to be sold to raise a large amount of cash.

Yes, if both the buyer and seller agree to it in their contract. There is usually a specific date mentioned in the contract when the seller must leave.

I’ve seen contracts where the buyer gives the seller a few weeks to stay so the seller can tie up loose ends.

When I’ve seen this situation invoked, the seller must leave by the end of the month, making it nice and neat for the buyer to take over the apartment on the 1st of the month.

I’ve never seen a Board reject this type of agreement.

Thank You Marty, that is great to know. : -)

Try Googling "SHARC technology". I'm sure you'll find the greatest amount of information available.

Thanks, Steven424, Will Do.. :-)

You piqued my curiosity, so I looked up SHARC Technology. If you want my opinion, I think it would be a complete waste of resources to install a unit that does nothing more than recover heat from a building's wastewater. Most buildings today do not generate sufficient wastewater at a large enough thermal differential to justify the return on investment.

Here's an article I found https://highmark.co/technologies/sharc-wastewater-energy-recovery/ Your mileage may vary.

You should consider consulting a California attorney who specializes in CA co-op law, rules, and regulations. Most of the contributors on this board are familiar with NYC co-ops, and I'm pretty sure this is little to no commonality between CA and NYC co-op rules and regulations.

My best and only advice is that you not do anything except bring the matter to the attention of the co-op's attorney and be guided by what they tell you. The few dollars you may save by trying to do this yourself could mushroom by orders of magnitude if you don't proceed to the exact letter of the law. My wife was a Trust and Estates attorney and you would not believe the levels of detail and complexity in dealing with something like this.

Good luck

What ever happened to the unsold shares?
We own co-ops throughout the City and would be interested buyers if they're available for sale. lf you would like to discuss email me @ stevenduck88@gmail.com
All the best!

I agree with Steven that consulting an attorney is *mandatory* here. Unsold Shares are one of the most complex and contentious areas of co-op law, with significant changes in interpretation over the years.

One point which I don't believe has ever changed (but confirm with your attorney): if the shareholder has lived in the apartment for even a day, then they are no longer a Holder of Unsold Shares and cannot regain that status.

- Carl Tait

Quick question. Where do you think the co-op's management would get the funds to replace fuse boxes with circuit breakers throughout the entire building?

Quick answer: Shareholder maintenance increase or assessment

It's much more financially fair to all shareholders that each unit owner be responsible for replacing their fusebox only. Over the years individual shareholders may have added additional electrical capacity to their fusebox or made other changes resulting in a more complex replacement and higher individual replacement cost.

If you read your proprietary lease, there should be a section that states you purchased your unit "as is" and become responsible for all defects extending back to when the Offering Plan was approved. I think it's paragraph 18 in most standard PL's

Our Coop did the same it's an upgrade from the old glass fuses to breakers. Cooperators should not be significantly upgraded without Board and Management approvals to increase electrical capacities. This is to ensure code compliance and safety measures. It would be on your proprietary lease, or house rules

Hi, your Proprietary Lease (PL) should have a section called Repairs by Lessee which spells out the responsibility of the Shareholder and the corporation with regards to repairs.

Traditionally, all electric wiring and service, once it enters into your unit is the Shareholder responsibility. We do this replacement of Federal Pacific / STABLOK breakers that are a fire hazard and the shareholder is always responsible for the payment, as per the PL.