A gift is NOT "borrowed" money. It is legally a gift--meaning the gift-giver has ZERO legal right to get the money back. Just because the children might promise to gift it back is irrelevant. The money is theirs once it has been gifted, which fulfills to requirements of the co-op board. If the co-op wishes for the applicants to keep the money for a minute after the purchase, they ought to write that into the deal. If they don't, why are we even discussing this? The applicants could set fire to the money if they want. They have done what was required both legally and ethically.
I have to strongly disagree with the advice provided about getting help from parents to buy a coop.
If your parents are willing to sign a letter saying it's a gift, then what's the problem? You can then later give them a gift as well. That is not a loan - it's them deciding to give you a gift at one point in time and then you deciding to give them a gift at another point in time. I am not a lawyer but I don't see how this could possibly be construed as fraud; people are allowed to give gifts as they see fit when they see fit. Another idea is to open a joint account with your parents, which is what I did. To be honest everyone does it and they are a ton of people out there who may never have achieved their dream of home-ownership without this type of help. If you love the apartment, go for it.
If your parents are willing to sign a letter saying it's a gift, then what's the problem? You can then later give them a gift as well. That is not a loan - it's them deciding to give you a gift at one point in time and then you deciding to give them a gift at another point in time. I am not a lawyer but I don't see how this could possibly be construed as fraud; people are allowed to give gifts as they see fit when they see fit. Another idea is to open a joint account with your parents, which is what I did. To be honest everyone does it and they are a ton of people out there who may never have achieved their dream of home-ownership without this type of help. If you love the apartment, go for it.
5
"Everyone does it" is not an excuse for engaging in fraud.
I'm having trouble understanding why this is fraud. The money is gifted from the the parents to the children. This means that the parents have no right to get the money back, nor do any of their creditors. The children legally possess the money, which is what is required by the co-op. If the co-op wishes the applicants to keep the money beyond the purchase date, then they would need to write that into the application. If they don't do that, the money is theirs to do with as they wish: go on an expensive vacation, toss it out the window, or... gift it to *whomever* they choose. In this case they are gifting it to their parents. It's not clear to me that this is a breach of ethics or law--they have obeyed the requirements of the co-op and of the government. If more is required by the co-op, they need to spell it out.
If people actually followed the rules, only the wealthy would be able to own property here. Many times in order to achieve the dream of owning your home, you have to jump through hoops. I know plenty of people who had some help sealing the deal. They are still happy homeowners. As long as you can pay your mortgage and maintenance without straining your finances, you will be fine. Good Luck!
11
It seems a little inconvenient to borrow money from parents to inflate your bank account balance, and needing to return it sometime later.
To the extent that someone is comfortable with that strategy, wouldn't it be more convenient to just concoct and print your own fraudulent bank statements for the co-op board?
To the extent that someone is comfortable with that strategy, wouldn't it be more convenient to just concoct and print your own fraudulent bank statements for the co-op board?
4
What are you talking about. One is fraud, the other is not. Explain how gifting money is fraud. It's not clear to me how it is.
I tried the gift/loan thing with my first place in 1985, and was out foxed by my parents. They "loaned" me $2,000 and signed a gift letter, but never let me repay them. It took years (maybe decades) of gifts, favors and running their errands before I felt like I had made up for that $2,000.
12
The New York Times was supposedly bought using borrowed money as proof of financial stability. The owners of the Times wouldn't own it today if Adolph Ochs hadn't committed that fraud.
Fraud is rarely prosecuted by the government. So the question should you commit fraud to advance yourself economically comes down to a risk reward equation. Anyone at the Times who says do the right thing because of morality should be asking the owners of the Times to give away their fortune since it was obtained by fraud.
Fraud is rarely prosecuted by the government. So the question should you commit fraud to advance yourself economically comes down to a risk reward equation. Anyone at the Times who says do the right thing because of morality should be asking the owners of the Times to give away their fortune since it was obtained by fraud.
22
Well said.
3
Hot water-- It sounds as though these parties live in a small building with a domestic tank type water heater. Larger buildings often have water heated by the boiler continuously. Clearly, the size of the complainant's heater is not sufficient. European style point of use water heaters are becoming more popular. These have the advantage of having no hot water pipes running through the building and fire up only when water usage is detected within the apartment. This is also a way of shifting hot water costs onto the tenant gas bill.
Dogs-- Building rules against dogs have become unenforceable due to the City. If a doctor certifies that a tenant requires a dog for emotional support, the dog is in whether the building likes it or not. There is also a legal countdown clock from the time the building becomes "aware" of an illegal dog. If no action is taken prior to the expiration of this 3 month period, the dog remains. We have tenants who purchased units in our no-dog co-op because their children suffer from asthma and allergies. It would be interesting to see whether emotional support or children's health would prevail in court.
Dogs-- Building rules against dogs have become unenforceable due to the City. If a doctor certifies that a tenant requires a dog for emotional support, the dog is in whether the building likes it or not. There is also a legal countdown clock from the time the building becomes "aware" of an illegal dog. If no action is taken prior to the expiration of this 3 month period, the dog remains. We have tenants who purchased units in our no-dog co-op because their children suffer from asthma and allergies. It would be interesting to see whether emotional support or children's health would prevail in court.
8
We have many elderly residents and young children in our co-op.
Many are fearful of dogs in general. Our long-standing policy has been to disallow dogs, the exception being service dogs. However, some new tenants have attempted to circumvent building rules by obtaining notes from doctors claiming that they need a dog for companionship, or to alleviate stress. (They have been informed of our no-dog policy prior to purchasong an apartment). Our Board and a majority of shareholders wish to maintain its no-dog policy.
Shouldn't the terms of the proprietary lease and house rules trump a very small minority who want a dog in order to be happy?
Many are fearful of dogs in general. Our long-standing policy has been to disallow dogs, the exception being service dogs. However, some new tenants have attempted to circumvent building rules by obtaining notes from doctors claiming that they need a dog for companionship, or to alleviate stress. (They have been informed of our no-dog policy prior to purchasong an apartment). Our Board and a majority of shareholders wish to maintain its no-dog policy.
Shouldn't the terms of the proprietary lease and house rules trump a very small minority who want a dog in order to be happy?
8
And they do. There is a difference between a service dog, which is trained to perform specific functions, and a so-called "emotional support" dog. ADA regs do NOT apply to the latter.
6
Many persons have chosen to live in a building BECAUSE it has a no pets policy. Dogs, especially some breeds and those of large size do not make for good neighbors.
24
There is also a big demand for dog-friendly buildings.
If my building had a name, it would be 'The Dog House'.
If my building had a name, it would be 'The Dog House'.
13
When looking for a co-op, our one non-negotiable was a building that was pet-friendly. We have a large dog, a lab, and she is a perfect neighbor. She does not bark and she drops to a "sit" or "down" on command. She sits politely in a corner of the elevator - but before we even get on, we ask our co-op neighbors if they are okay with dogs. We have not had any problems between our dog and our co-op neighbors.
So I think it's less a matter of "some breeds and those of large size do not make for good neighbors," as much as it is that their owners do not train them to be good neighbors. Please don't blame the dogs!
So I think it's less a matter of "some breeds and those of large size do not make for good neighbors," as much as it is that their owners do not train them to be good neighbors. Please don't blame the dogs!
25
Exactly coop owners consider the existence of a no pet policy when deciding to buy a unit. When they purchase, they should be able to rely on the no pet policy/ no dog policy. Bad owners don't control their dogs and figure no one will take any action and many times they are correct. It's wrong.
Allergic reactions to pet dander can be and is often medically significant as a result both sides of the issue should be considered. There should be no blanket acceptance of a "epically needed pet". Why, because every unit owner has a right to have their medical issues considered. If it's a no pet or no dog building and you need a dog, don't buy there!
Allergic reactions to pet dander can be and is often medically significant as a result both sides of the issue should be considered. There should be no blanket acceptance of a "epically needed pet". Why, because every unit owner has a right to have their medical issues considered. If it's a no pet or no dog building and you need a dog, don't buy there!
4