nEW FoRM oF poWER oF ATToRnEY GoES InTo EFFECT

E d i t o r s
UPDATE
Magda L. Cruz
Aaron Shmulewitz
Edward Baer
DE CE MBE R 20 0 9 | volume 1
Kara I. Rakowski
1 NEW FORM
Transactional Update
OF POWER OF
ATTORNEY GOES
INTO EFFECT
By Craig Ingber
2
Administrative LAW
Update
MCI AND J-51
APPLICATIONS:
VERIFYING THAT
YOUR BUILDING’S
ROOM COUNT
IS CORRECTLY
REGISTERED WITH
HPD AND DHCR
COULD SAVE TIME
AND MONEY
By Paul Kazanecki
3 Notable
Achievements
4 TENANT LEASING
Transactional Update
DUE DILIGENCE –
PART 2
By Allan L. Gosdin
Cases of
5 BBWG
note
6
Co-Op | Condo
Corner
By Aaron Shmulewitz
7 BIDDING AT A
LITIGATION Update
FORECLOSURE SALE
– CAVEAT EMPTOR
By William Rifkin
T ransactional Up date
NEW FORM OF POWER OF ATTORNEY
GOES INTO EFFECT
By Craig Ingber
Recent changes in legislation have
resulted in important changes in
what many lawyers and clients refer
to as a “Power of Attorney.” Effective
September 1, 2009, the New York
State legislature promulgated a new
Statutory Short Form Power of Attorney (“New
POA”). From and after September 1, 2009, a person
desiring to give another person the authority to act on
his or her behalf must use the New POA. While old
forms that were validly executed prior to September 1
will still be valid, only the New POA can be signed on
and after September 1.
The proper delegation of authority by power of attorney
in the New POA is not as simple as one might expect.
The New POA must be signed by both the principal
and the attorney in fact, and must be acknowledged in
the same way that a deed for the transfer of real property
is signed and acknowledged. The New POA must also
be executed and initialed in a prescribed manner. Also,
the New POA now permits the principal to give his
attorney in fact the authority to make major gifts when
executed in connection with the new Statutory Major
Gifts Rider.
The New POA is also “durable”, meaning that, unless
the New POA explicitly provides otherwise in writing,
the attorney in fact retains the right to act on behalf of
of its intended use.
the principal even after the incapacity of the principal,
unless the New POA is revoked or otherwise effectively More so than ever, the use of any power of attorney,
including the New POA, should be discussed with
modified in writing prior to any such incapacity.
your attorney prior to its execution and should be used
Parties must be careful to ensure that the form of power
cautiously and with consideration given to the scope
of attorney that they sign meets the new statutory
and purpose of the intended grant of authority.
requirements. If it does not, a bank may reject it for
use in a transaction, and a title company may not be Craig Ingber is a partner in the Firm’s Transactional
able to have it recorded, thereby throwing a major Department.
wrench into the ability to consummate a transaction.
As always, the use of a power of attorney requires
careful consideration concerning the scope and nature
Belkin Burden Wenig & Goldman, LLP | 270 Madison Avenue | New York, NY 10016 | Tel 212 .867 .4466 | Fax 212 .867 .0709
newsltr_nov_09_4p.indd 2
Attorney Advertising
1
12/10/09 3:56:55 PM
Admi nistrative Up date
MCI and J-51 Applications: Verifying That Your
Building’s Room Count is Correctly Registered with
HPD and DHCR Could Save Time and Money
By Paul Kazanecki
Owners seeking to receive
either Major Capital Improvement (“MCI”) rent increases
from the NYS Division of
Housing and Community
Renewal (“DHCR”) and/
or J-51 tax abatement
benefits from the NYC Department of Housing
Preservation and Development (“HPD”) would
be wise to review the status of the number of units
registered with the DHCR and HPD. If there is
any discrepancy between the actual number of
units and the number of units registered with
either the DHCR or HPD, be ready to have the
processing of the applications delayed until the
discrepancies are satisfactorily explained. In the
case of J-51 applications, HPD will want to make
sure that the number of units registered with HPD
equals the number of units registered with the
DHCR on the most recent annual registration.
The correction of any discrepancy can be both
time consuming and costly.
Similarly, the DHCR looks at past MCI
applications to determine if the same buildingwide room count is being used in pending
applications. If not, the DHCR issues a notice
requesting an explanation explaining the room
count discrepancy. If records are available from
the DHCR, a Freedom of Information Law
request may be submitted to review prior room
count records.
As such, a little homework before a filing may
result in dividends later on by avoiding a notice
for additional information from the DHCR or
HPD.
Paul Kazanecki is a Legal Assistant in BBWG’s
Administrative Department.
2
newsltr_nov_09_4p.indd 3
12/10/09 3:56:59 PM
Notable Achievements
In the aftermath of the Cour t of Appeals’ decision in Rober ts v. Tishman Speyer, a BBWG
Bulletin was cited in an ar ticle in The Real Deal online edition on November 20. The ar ticle
noted that the BBWG’s Bulletin raised numerous questions about the impact of the decision,
including whether the City could owe landlords large refunds of real proper ty tax overpayments
by landlords based on propor tional reductions in J-51 tax benefits received by such landlords,
attributable to the number of rent-regulated apar tments in their proper ties.
Kinne Yon and Neil Sigety of client Kenbar Management were featured on WCBS-TV ’s repor t on
1510 Lexington Avenue, the City’s first ne w smoke free building. Sherwin Belkin, a par tner
in BBWG’s Administrative and Appeals Depar tments, drafted the lease rider that all prospective
tenants must sign in which they represent that neither they nor their guests will smoke in their
apar tments or in the building’s common or surrounding areas.
Aaron Shmulewitz, a par tner in BBWG’s Transactional Depar tment, was quot ed in The
New York Times Sunday Real E state section’s Q&A feature on November 15 on whether a co-op
can correct an apar tment’s share allocation retroactively. Mr. Shmule witz was also mentioned in a
separate ar ticle in that day’s Real Estate section, commenting on a recent cour t decision favorable
to co-op and condo Boards. Mr. Shmule witz was also quoted in postings on brickunderground.
com on November 10 and 11, discussing, respectively, potential sexual harassment claims that
building employees can asser t against co-op and condo Boards as a result of unwanted sexual
advances from residents, and the caution with which co-op and condo Boards are approaching
the issue of adopting smoking bans in apar tments.
Craig Ingber, a par tner in BBWG’s Transactional Depar tment, lectured on the topic of
“Negotiating Commercial Contracts of Sale” at the Ne w York County Lawyers Association’s
second annual Commercial Real Estate Institute CLE program on November 18.
Martin Heistein, head of BBWG’s Administrative Depar tment, lectured on the topic of
Major Capital Improvement (MCI) rent increases, at a seminar sponsored by C HIP (Community
Housing Improvement Program) on December 1, 2009.
Kara Rakowski, a par tner in BBWG’s Administrative Depar tment, lectured on the topic of
zoning and use issues relative to rent-regulated tenants at a broker class sponsored by the Real
Estate Board of Ne w York on October 28.
Matthew Brett, a par tner in BBWG’s Litigation Depar tment, will give a CLE lecture on
Januar y 29, 2010 as par t of the Ne w York City Bar Association’s program “An Introduction &
Over vie w of Affordable Housing & Community Development Law.” The program will cover the
legal and financing str ucture of a tax-exempt housing bond issuance, rent regulation, business
improvement districts and an over vie w of the various government entities subsidizing affordable
housing in Ne w York State.
3
newsltr_nov_09_4p.indd 4
12/10/09 3:57:01 PM
Transactional Up date
TENANT LEASING DUE DILIGENCE –- PART 2
By Allan L. Gosdin
A previous article discussed
the importance of a commercial tenant conducting
due diligence to determine
whether its proposed use is
permitted under the existing
certificate of occupancy. This
article will address other areas of due diligence that
a commercial tenant must conduct.
A tenant must become thoroughly familiar with
all legal, physical and mechanical issues regarding
the space it is considering to lease. The REBNY
form office, store and loft leases commonly used
by commercial landlords in New York City each
contain broad, boilerplate clauses that state that
the landlord is not making any representations
or warranties regarding the space and except
as otherwise specified in the lease, the tenant is
accepting the space in its “as-is” current condition
subject only to latent defects. Since commercial
landlords are generally unwilling to neutralize
the “as-is” disclaimer in any significant manner,
a prospective tenant must conduct sufficient due
diligence on the space prior to signing the lease.
The following are fundamental issues for any
prospective tenant to investigate before executing
a lease.
1. Do building code or other violations exist
against the building which could negatively affect
the tenant’s use of its space? An initial search of
the Department of Building’s website will provide
information on whether there are any building
code, ECB violations or other complaints issued
against the building and the status of such
proceedings.
2. Will the tenant need any type of permit or
license in order to operate its business in the
space? Commercial leases typically provide that
the tenant is responsible to obtain any and all
permits and licenses for its business.
For example, if a tenant plans to operate a
restaurant or bar in the space with a capacity for
75 or more patrons, the space will be classified
as a “Place of Assembly” and a corresponding
permit must be obtained. If a tenant intends to
obtain a liquor license, he must determine if one
has been issued to the current tenant, and if the
current tenant is willing to cooperate in applying
for a transfer of the license, since it is extremely
difficult to obtain a new liquor license from the
New York State Liquor Authority for a business in
New York City.
3. Are the services and utilities that service the space
sufficient for its intended use? For example:
a. Is the electrical capacity in the space sufficient
for tenant’s use? If the tenant installs and uses
equipment which exceeds the electrical capacity
of the building, such equipment use could be a
violation under the lease and could also damage
the electrical system of the building.
b. What hours will landlord provide air
conditioning to the space, and will such air
conditioning capacity meet tenant’s needs? If
it is not sufficient, tenant may have to explore
the possibility of installing supplemental air
conditioning units; such supplemental units
could exceed the electrical capacity of the space
without modifying the electrical system. Also, is
the air conditioning controlled by the landlord or
the tenant?
c. Will there be sufficient water supplied for
tenant’s use? Will water and sewer charges be
separately metered? Landlords typically want to
have separate meters for a business which will use
large amounts of water, such as restaurants and
laundromats.
4. Is the named landlord the owner of the building?
Nothing should be taken for granted; tenants
should confirm who owns the building to ensure
that the correct person or entity is the named
landlord in the lease and executes same. For a
property located in New York City, this can be
accomplished in a matter of minutes by reviewing
the ACRIS database. (On one occasion, we had to
advise a client not to proceed with its negotiations
as a prospective subtenant because our review of
the ACRIS database disclosed that the owner/
master landlord was not the same person indicated
in the sublease. Apparently the original building
owner (and landlord under the master lease) had
transferred title of the building to two members
of his family as tenants-in-common and a serious
family dispute subsequently arose. The prospective
sublandlord was not willing to agree to redraft
the sublease to reflect the correct identities of the
master landlords, which would have required the
consent of both to the sublease.)
5. Will the landlord be performing any repairs
to the building facade which will require the
placement of scaffolding along the building?
Pursuant to New York City Local Law 11, every
five years any building over six stories in height
must have its exterior facade inspected by an
engineer and the engineer must file a report
with the Department of Buildings. If the report
discloses that repairs must be made, before
the building owner can commence the work,
protective scaffolding must be erected along the
exterior of the building. Sidewalk scaffolding can
negatively impact the visibility of and access to
a business, especially on the ground floor of the
building. A review of DOB records will indicate
when the last facade inspection report was filed so
tenant may determine when the next inspection
report is due. If the building is approaching the
new filing period, the tenant needs to determine
how seriously any potential scaffolding could
impact its business, and whether to negotiate
sufficient protections into its lease-- i.e., the right
to place signage on the scaffolding so as not to lose
its visibility; an affirmative obligation by landlord
to ensure that access to the space is not impaired
by the scaffolding (i.e., by installing only double
height scaffolding); or rent abatement if access
or visibility to the space is significantly impaired
beyond a stated period.
6. Are there any environmental issues affecting
the building or property? This will be particularly
important if the property has previously been
used for industrial purposes, which could create a
greater potential for the presence of environmental
contamination. Not only can environmental
contamination pose a hazard to the tenant, but
the tenant could face potential liability for cleanup if the contamination is discovered while it is
occupying the premises, unless it can definitively
prove to the environmental agency that it did not
cause the condition. A tenant can get an initial
idea of the property use history by reviewing the
certificate of occupancy for the building as well
as the zoning maps. A tenant should not hesitate
to request copies of any environmental reports
on the property which the landlord may have in
its possession. If it appears that the building has
a significant history of industrial use or that the
premises have been operated by a tenant which
used hazardous materials (e.g., a dry-cleaner),
a prospective tenant may also want to consider
retaining its own environmental consultant to
inspect the property and review public records
to determine whether there have been any
environmental issues on the property. Moreover,
a landlord should be asked to represent that there
are no hazardous materials, including lead based
paint and asbestos, so that, in the event that
hazardous materials are subsequently discovered,
the landlord would be held responsible to
remediate the condition.
In summary, the more information a tenant
obtains ahead of time, the better prepared it
will be to decide whether to take the space, and
to effectively negotiate the lease with sufficient
protections.
Allan L. Gosdin is an associate in BBWG’s
Transactional Department.
4
newsltr_nov_09_4p.indd 5
12/10/09 3:57:02 PM
BBWG Cases of Note
Daniel Altman, a par tner in BBWG’s Transactional Depar tment, represented client Alpine
Capital Bank in the negotiation of a lease extension and modification agreement in which the
bank consolidated its space on two floors, and took an entire additional floor, at 680 Fifth
Avenue, comprising approximately 14,000 square feet, for an additional ten year term.
LEWIS LINDENBERG and J EFFREY LEVIN E, par tners in BBWG’s Litigation Depar tment,
achieved a substantial victor y for a commercial landlord in a Supreme Cour t action commenced
by a net lessee that was seeking a finding that the net lessee was not in violation of its 48 year
lease and an injunction enjoining the landlord from terminating the lease. The Cour t granted
the landlord’s motion and issued an order dismissing the action in its entirety, and vacating a
Yellowstone injunction, thereby paving the way for the landlord to terminate the substantially
below-market net lease and recover possession of the entire building.
Martin Meltzer, a par tner in BBWG’s Litigation Depar tment, successfully represented an
Upper East Side co-op in obtaining an award of $61,000 in attorneys’ fees against a shareholder
after successfully prosecuting a trial of the co-op’s non-payment eviction proceeding against
the shareholder, defeating the shareholder’s affirmative defenses claiming breach of warranty of
habitability based on alleged noise from a neighboring apar tment.
Joseph Burden, co-head of BBWG’s Litigation Depar tment, won a substantial victor y in
having an action dismissed of a case in Ne w York Supreme Cour t against the owner of a loft
building on the grounds that the loft was deregulated and not subject to rent regulation. The
judge determined that the owner’s buyout of the rights and improvements from a prior tenant
and an order from the Loft Board finding that the unit was exempt from rent regulation, were
binding on a successor tenant. As a result of the decision, the tenant’s claim to have the rent
reduced by several thousand dollars per month was rejected. In a separate action, Mr. Burden
also persuaded the Supreme Cour t that a commercial tenant was not able to recover attorneys’
fees in a Yellowstone action for injunctive relief, because the lease did not provide for attorneys’
fees in the event that the tenant had to commence litigation. The Cour t also rejected the claim
that the owner’s ser vice of the notice to cure, alleging violations of the lease, was a breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Kara Rakowski, a par tner in BBWG’s Administrative Depar tment, obtained a decis ion by the
Appellate Division dismissing a tenant association’s Ar ticle 78 proceeding, and upholding the
determination by the Ne w York City Depar tment of Housing Preser vation & Development that a
hotel owner had not harassed SRO tenants and was entitled to a Cer tificate of No Harassment.
Martin Heistein, head of BBWG’s Administrative Depar tment and Paul Kazanecki, a legal
assistant in the Depar tment, represented the owner of a large multi-family residential building
on the Upper West Side in obtaining a $275,000 Major Capital Improvement rent increase for
the installation of a ne w elevator at the building. This order issued by D HCR allowed the owner
to increase rents in the rent regulated apar tments by $13.41 per room per month.
5
newsltr_nov_09_4p.indd 8
12/10/09 3:57:05 PM
Co-Op | Condo Corner
By Aaron Shmulewitz
Aaron Shmulewitz heads the Firm’s Co-op/Condo practice. Aaron represents more than 300 cooperative and condominium
boards throughout the City, as well as sponsors of cooperative and condominium conversions, and numerous purchasers and
sellers of cooperative and condominium apartments, buildings, residences and other properties. Some recent noteworthy
court decisions in this practice area are discussed below.
COMMERCIAL CONDO UNIT OWNER ENTITLED TO $7,000/DAY
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES PLUS ATTORNEYS FEES IN SUIT AGAINST
SPONSOR FOR COMPLETION DELAY
225 Fifth Ave. Retail LLC v. 225 5th LLC
CO-OP SHAREHOLDER WHO DENIES ACCESS TO CO-OP WILLING TO
MAKE REPAIRS CANNOT SUE CO-OP FOR PROPERTY DAMAGE
Leschins v. 3777 Independence Corp.
UNIT OWNER CANNOT COMPEL CONDO TO ARBITRATE LIEN
DISPUTE IN RABBINICAL COURT; OBLIGATION TO PAY IS
ABSOLUTE, AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION
Matter of Eimer v. Board of Managers of 5316 14th Avenue Condominium
CO-OP SHAREHOLDER IS NOT A HOLDER OF UNSOLD SHARES,
BECAUSE SPONSOR NEVER DESIGNATED HER OR PREDECESSOR
AS SUCH
C O MME N T | See above, as to anti-condo/purchaser trends.
CO-OP BUYER CAN CANCEL CONTRACT AND GET REFUND OF
DEPOSIT UPON BANK’S WITHDRAWAL OF LOAN COMMITMENT
FOLLOWING LOSS OF HER JOB
Heilig v. Maron-Ames
C O MME N T | This decision was based on a specific rider paragraph; the standard
co-op purchase agreement does not permit cancellation for this reason.
CONDO UNIT OWNER THAT DENIED ACCESS FOR TERRACE
REPAIRS MUST PAY CONDO’S ATTORNEYS FEES, AND SPECIAL
EXPENSES NOW NECESSITATED FOR ADDITIONAL SCAFFOLD
DROP
Residential Board of Managers v. Goldberg
C O MME N T | The Court reached this decision despite the absence of any explicit
language in the bylaws, and appeared to rely on “rough and ready justice”.
210-220-230 Owners Corp. v. Arancio
C OM M EN T | This case followed several precedent decisions in strictly examining all
of the co-op’s governing documents; HUS status was denied because the designation
requirement in the offering plan was not satisfied, even though other requirements
were.
CONDO CLAIMS AGAINST SPONSOR’S ARCHITECT DISMISSED,
BECAUSE ARCHITECT DID NOT CERTIFY QUALITY OF
CONSTRUCTION, ONLY THAT CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS
Board of Managers of Woodpoint Plaza Condominium v. Woodpoint Plaza LLC
C OM M EN T | This case continued a recent trend that reflects the reluctance of courts
to entertain claims involving newly constructed condos against sponsors and their
professionals.
CONDO
PURCHASER’S
CLAIMS
AGAINST
SPONSOR’S
CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANT FOR POOR HVAC SYSTEM
PERFORMANCE DISMISSED, BECAUSE PURCHASER NOT A
KNOWN THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY OF CONSULTANT WHEN
SERVICES WERE RENDERED
FATHER CAN EVICT SON FROM CO-OP OWNED BY FATHER
ALONE; HANDING SON KEYS, TERMING IT “SON’S HOME”, AND
SON’S PAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE FOR 18 YEARS INSUFFICIENT
TO CREATE CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST
Carnivale v. Carnivale
CONCRETE SUBFLOOR REPAIRS WERE OBLIGATION OF SPONSOR,
NOT CONDO; UNIT OWNER WANTING TO MAKE REPAIRS ON HIS
OWN COULD BE COMPELLED BY CONDO TO SIGN ALTERATIONS
AGREEMENT AND PAY CONDO FEES
Lorne v. 50 Madison Avenue LLC
CONDO PURCHASERS’ REFUSAL TO ATTEND CLOSING BECAUSE
SELLERS REFUSED TO AGREE TO PURCHASERS’ DEMAND TO
LOWER PRICE BY 10% WAS BREACH OF CONTRACT, ENTITLING
SELLERS TO RETAIN DEPOSIT
Bandachowicz v. McFarland
Sykes v. RFD Third Avenue 1 Associates
6
newsltr_nov_09_4p.indd 6
12/10/09 3:57:02 PM
Litigati o n U p d ate
BIDDING AT A FORECLOSURE SALE
– CAVEAT EMPTOR
By William Rifkin
UNIT OWNER CAN SUE CONDO FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
THAT ROOFS ABOVE UNITS ARE LIMITED COMMON ELEMENTS
Stein v. Garfield Regency Condominium
TENANT CANNOT BE EVICTED FOR MERE POSSESSION OF CHILD
PORNOGRAPHY
ST Owner v. Bonczek
C OM M EN T | While this case involved a rent-stabilized tenant, its holding is
instructive for co-ops as well.
CONDO UNIT OWNER NOT RELIEVED OF LIABILITY FOR COMMON
CHARGES DESPITE WATER LEAKS IN UNIT
Board of Managers of The Silk Building Condominium v. Levenbrown
C OM M EN T | This is a very important decision for condos, reiterating that the
warranty of habitability does not apply to them
SPONSOR SUCCESSOR IN CONDO CAN POST “FOR SALE” SIGN ON
BUILDING EXTERIOR, PER BYLAWS; BOARD’S REMOVAL OF SIGN IS
NOT PROTECTED BY BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE, MAKING BOARD
LIABLE FOR DAMAGES
Perlbinder v. Board of Managers of The 411 East 53rd Street Condominium
CO-OP’S KNOWLEDGE OF SHAREHOLDER’S PENTHOUSE
ENCLOSURE FOR 35 YEARS AFTER APPARENT APPROVAL OF
IT BARS CURRENT BOARD FROM TAKING ACTION AGAINST
SHAREHOLDER’S SUCCESSOR NOW
Kiam v. Park & 66th Corporation
COMMERCIAL CONDO UNIT OWNER CAN SUE BOARD FOR
PUNITIVE DAMAGES FOR INTERFERING WITH ALTERATION,
WHERE BOARD CONSENT IS NOT NECESSARY
Bishop v. 59 West 12th Street Condominium
C OM M EN T | TThe Court indicated that the Board’s actions were apparently
motivated in large part by one Board member’s feelings about how the proposed
alteration would affect him. Board members who make fiduciary decisions based on
personal motives do so at their own risk.
There is an old Ferengi saying: “In misery there is
profit, so long as it is someone else’s misery.” The
current wave of mortgage foreclosures has opened up
a vast potential market of providing the general public
with the opportunity to acquire residential properties
at a great discount with banks seemingly eager to
unload properties whose market value appear to be
far less than the amount due on the mortgages. However, even if you are
not a Ferengi, the phrases “caveat emptor” or “buyer beware” has potential
devastating consequences to the novice who is unfamiliar with the foreclosure
sale process. The following are some points that a person should be aware of
before deciding to bid at a foreclosure sale:
1. Generally, a bidder does not have the right to inspect the property before
the sale. Foreclosure sales for the property are in “as is” condition. There
is nothing to prevent the prior owner from removing everything of value
(appliances, fixtures, cabinets, even flooring and doors). In one case, the
foreclosed owner removed the face plate from the light switch near the front
door. When the broker for the bank went in the house and tried to turn on
the light, he was almost electrocuted. In another case, the foreclosed owner
put holes in all of the water pipes, taped over the holes to disguise the holes’
existence, and shut off all of the water valves. When the new owner went to
turn on the water, the entire house was flooded. Remember, the foreclosed
owner is not a bidder’s friend.
2. Even if the house is trashed, that fact does not constitute grounds
for failing to close and pay the balance of the bid price. Basically, the
successful bidder assumes the risk of loss as soon as the hammer is struck
down at the foreclosure sale. 3. Any foreclosure sale is subject to all tenancies, and the fact that the house
is occupied by a tenant or even the foreclosed owner does not constitute
grounds for failing to pay the balance of the bid price. If the house is
occupied, the successful bidder must commence an action at his own cost
and expense to evict the persons who are occupying the house, which can
take months, while you are paying the real estate taxes and other carrying
charges. Of course, during that time, there is nothing to prevent the persons
occupying the house from trashing it.
4. At the sale, the winning bidder is required to have at least 10% of the
winning bid in certified funds. He cannot bid and then ask to go to an ATM
or to his bank to obtain a check. If the winning bid is $200,000.00, and the
terms of sale require that closing be held in 30 days, you have to make sure
that you have the funds to close. Foreclosure sales are not contingent on
financing the balance of the winning bid.
5. Do not get caught up in a bidding frenzy. Do your homework and
estimate what your maximum bid will be based on what you can afford and
stick to it.
6. If the mortgage being foreclosed is a second mortgage, remember that the
purchase will be subject to the amount due on the first mortgage. Foreclosing
banks may not know the amount due to the first mortgagee. Generally, a
first mortgagee will demand that its mortgage be paid in full either at closing
when you receive the referee’s deed or shortly thereafter.
7. Listen to the terms of sale as they are being read, and if the terms of sale are
posted, read them carefully. Understand that bidders to not have the option
of negotiating any provision of the terms of sale, that the terms of sale is a
contract, and the sinning bidder will be bound by the terms of sale. If you
feel that any term of sale is onerous, don’t bid.
William Rifkin is a partner in the Firm’s Litigation Department.
Attorney Advertising
newsltr_nov_09_4p.indd 7
7
12/10/09 3:57:04 PM
www.bbwg.com
New York Office | 270 Madison Avenue | New York, NY 10016 | Tel 212 .867 .4466 | Fax 212 .867 .0709
Connecticut Office | 495 Post Road East, 2nd Floor | Westport, CT 06880 | Tel 203.227 .1534 | Fax 203 .227 .6044
Please Note: This newsletter is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as providing legal advice. This newsletter provides only a brief summary
of complex legal issues. The applicability of any or all of the issues described in this newsletter is dependent upon your particular facts and circumstances. Prior results do not
guarantee a similar outcome. Accordingly, prior to attempting to utilize or implement any of the suggestions provided in this newsletter, you should consult with your attorney.
This newsletter is considered “Attorney Advertising” under New York State court rules.
Belkin Burden Wenig & Goldman, LLP
270 Madison Avenue | New York, NY 10016
newsltr_nov_09_4p.indd 1
12/10/09 3:56:48 PM