New York Real Estate Lawyer Blog

June 18, 2009

When a Real Estate Closing Attorney is Not an Attorney in New York?

Since lawyers have been lawyers, there has always been pressure to release the age old bonds of the attorney client privilege in favor of letting non-professionals practice law. Never more so has this pressure been as intense as in the real estate industry where many states permit non-lawyer participants do all sorts of acts that attorneys did or should do. For example, real estate brokers in some states are permitted to draft and review and prepare the contract of sale in a real estate transaction. Not only does having an attorney present raise the level of the transaction, but it also insulates parties from the self-dealing that can often occur if an attorney is not looking into the matter.

To its credit, New York State has generally avoided the trend to permit non-lawyer quasi professionals invade the traditional attorney client relationship. The reason for this is that we believe in New York that the professional, confidential fiduciary relationship between client and attorney is tantamount to making the system work.

Recently, a New York State appellate court censured an attorney who formed a company using non-lawyers to provide closing services in the sale of foreclosed properties. The attorney contended that the services his law firm (company) provided were “clerical” in nature, and did not amount to the practice of law. Despite his “previously unblemished record,” however, the Court disagreed, finding that he violated ethical cannons by aiding non-attorneys in the unauthorized practice of law. Specifically, the Court held that the services performed by his closing company “were of the character usually performed by lawyers, and were formed pursuant to a contract that required an admitted attorney as a necessary presence.”

May 26, 2009

Do Fewer Layers of Government Mean Fewer Taxes in New York?

by Peter Klose

As the fiscal crisis for government deepens, local leaders are increasingly pressed to re-tool. For years, consolidation of governmental services has been a complex labyrinth of regulation understood by few. New York State Attorney General, Andrew M. Cuomo believes that one way to improve the services and reduce the tax burden, is to remove and consolidate various layers of government– to reduce the tax bills for everyday tax payers who often pay county and town taxes, village taxes, school taxes and taxes for special districts, including water, sewer, and utilities.

Given the current fiscal crisis New York State faces, with declining revenue (taxes) and increasing needs (costs of services), how is the local municipality going to effectively provide the services without increasing taxes or reorganizing governmental entities to efficiently provide the same services.

Just as private businesses re-organize in this global economy, the municipal market place might need re-structuring if we are to retain our middle class, our businesses, and our home rule. Think of the duplicity (redundancy and otherwise) in services provided by an estimated 10,521 overlapping governmental units, sub-divisions, etc. Would private industry permit the same wasteful bureaucracies that exist in local communities.

May 15, 2009

Brooklyn Court Does the Right Thing in Foreclosure Action.

by Peter Klose

It’s not often that our New York City judiciary goes out of its way to investigate, report and do the right thing. But, that’s what the Kings County, Supreme Court, (LAURA L. JACOBSON, J) just did in a mortgage foreclosure matter that crossed her desk.

After noting that the foreclosure papers were served on a “live in” nurse, the Judge took the unprecedented action of requiring the Plaintiff (Argent Mortgage) to provide proof that they were entitled to foreclosure. Even though the Debtor had not responded to the court action, she ordered the mortgage company to supply copies of the loan documents used to secure the mortgage; she required an actual loan officer to appear at a hearing and supply evidence and testimony as to why the Mortgage Company would underwrite a loan in the amount of $315,000, even though there was evidence that the borrower (a taxi driver) earned $69,900 per year, and showed total debts of $91,807, against assets of only $58,119.30. In other words, there was no chance that the Mortgage would be re-paid, and the borrower made no payments toward the Mortgage.

Incensed by the clear fraud, the Judge ordered that the Bank pay for a Special Referee and a Guardian Ad Litem to investigate the situation. It didn’t get any better for the bank. In denying the referral to a Referee and foreclosure she said,

April 29, 2009

What to Expect from your Local (Real Estate or Business) Attorney in New York.

by Peter Klose

In today’s day and age, attorneys, rightly and wrongly, get bad reputations from the public. Often these negative reputations are undeserved, but, as a profession, we lawyers need to do a better job of protecting that status as a profession by acting “professional.” So, what is it that small business people, real estate clients, and the simple estate planning clients need, and what is it that causes such clients to complain to the ethics board?

Ethics in the hometown practice of law can be complex and potentially dangerous for the local attorney who has practiced for years, given of themselves to the community and knows many in the community. What can your personal lawyer do, and what should you expect? When should you make a complaint to the local grievance committee?

Traps for the Unwary

April 22, 2009

New York State Raises Filing Fees on Deed Recording.

by Peter Klose

In a transparent effort to raise fees, the New York State Legislature has instituted a fee hike on real property transfers, by increasing the filing fees for the RP-5217 Property Transfer Report. [See Real Property Law § 333(3), amended by L.2009, c.56, Pt. JJ, approved 4/7/2009].

The new fees increased most deed filing fees from $165 to $250, (for deeds submitted for recording after June 1, 2009). For questions on the new filing fee or other transfer report related matters, contact the Rockland County Clerk’s Office or the ORPS’ Data Management Unit at 518-473-7222.

Bottom Line, they have to make up the budget shortfalls somewhere.

March 23, 2009

Buyer Beware: of Bed Bugs?

by Peter Klose

There are various standard inspections that buyers of New York State real estate customarily order in their inspection process to buying a home. According to the pest control experts, there should be another– an inspection for Climex Lectularius or “common bed bug.”

Everyone’s worst nightmare is a hotel room infected with those tiny nocturnal insects that hide in nooks, crannies, and crevices during the day, but feed on humans (blood) at night. The nightmare scenario of oval flattent and wingless bodies which are a light to reddish-brown and 1/4 to 3/8 inch long (think apple seed). The welts take a day or two to develop and not all bed bug sufferers react to their bites, which delays detection and action.

Buyer beware if you’re buying a house or looking for a new condo or apartment because you may be moving into a home or apartment invaded by bed bugs. New York State law provides you no protection from such pest infestations because most sellers do not complete the Property Disclosure Statements choosing instead to pay a $500 penalty for not completing it before making the sale. Indeed, real estate disclosure laws often don’t apply to co-op and condo owners or lessors.

March 9, 2009

Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act– Compliance in New York

by Peter Klose

As the distress in the real estate market continues in New York, more and more people are turning to their lawyers to carefully review and consider their real estate sales contracts for any “loop holes” available to justify the cancellation of a contract and to win the return of a down payment.

The scenario in a New York City Condo purchase goes something like this. The buyer puts down a boat load of money as a down payment to secure an apartment in the hottest building in Manhattan, or any of the five boroughs. The developer starts having financial difficulties or can’t meet originally intended construction deadlines, and, in the intervening months (or years), the buyer loses interest or a job and can no longer afford the price (which has also declined). As the New York real estate market crumbles, so do these deals, and the buyer wants out.

Recently, some bright and creative New York Real Estate litigators have turned to an ancient, but potentially useful, statute passed in 1968 and known as the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, to argue that the down payments should be returned and the contracts voided because the Developer did not comply with the provisions. The Interstate Land Sales Disclosure Act generally applies to developers selling or leasing–through interstate commerce.

February 27, 2009

Sale and Lease Back Options in Distressed New York State Real Estate.

by Peter Klose

In this era of distressed real estate, and even more distressed home owners, there are several life rings being thrown around including “sale-lease back” options. Under a typical “sale and lease back” situation an “investor” buys a person’s home and leases it back to them. The practice is both common and legal in real estate, and is intended to raise cash for short-term needs or to secure tax benefits. Sometimes, the leaseback agreements permit the sellers the right to repurchase the property after some prescribed period and that is often a benefit to the investor in an inclining real estate market.

In residential real estate, the sale-leaseback allows financially strapped homeowners in financial trouble to stay in their homes and pay their debts, but the practice is susceptible to fraud when investors don’t give homeowners the promised money. For example, some “investors” pocket the mortgages they obtain from banks or strip equity from the homes rather than letting owners get back on their feet.

The WSJournal had an interesting article which explained the potential pitfalls of such a relationship.

February 11, 2009

Powers of Attorney in New York– New Forms and Protections

by Peter Klose

How much litigation is spawned by incomplete or suspicious powers of attorney issued to people in confidential or, at least, close personal relationships to the person giving the power to the agent. The opportunities for undue influence are unbelievable, and have lead to sweeping changes in the New York State laws.

By signature on January 27, 2009, New York’s Governor Paterson signed into law revisions to sections of the NYS General Obligations Law which governs short form of powers of attorney. Although it is unclear whether the enactment date of March 1, 2009 will be extended, the comprehensive revisions will result in a completely new form, and, in some cases, along with a separate formal rider required when the the Agent makes significant gifts using the Power of Attorney.

One change will require the agent to have his signature “acknowledged” (with the formality of a deed) on the power of attorney giving the agent the right to do the transaction. The power will not be effective unless the acknowledged (and notarized) signature of both the Agent and the person giving the power appears on the form. For further safeguarding, statutorily defined “major gifts” will have to be separately executed as a rider (SMGR rider), with two disinterested witnesses attesting to the signature. New York title companies may refuse to write title if the form is not followed particularly.

February 8, 2009

Lands Underwater in the Hudson River Valley and New York State

by Peter Klose

Did you know that New York State has in the past, and continues to, sell, give, and transfer portions of navigable waters to interested upland owners. What does that mean?

Ever wonder who owns the lands under the Hudson River? In river communities where water front property is valuable for its view, the land can also be valuable for land you cannot see– the land under water.

“Land under water”‘ is land submerged by water, and includes that land below the high water mark in navicable waters (rivers), tidal water (estuaries), lakes and ponds, and, at times, can appear to be dry land (perhaps it was previously filled naturally by development). The owner of property on “dry land” is referred to as the “Upland Owner,” and is often benefited by actually owning the rights to the land under water. Generally speaking, New York State owns the land under all navigable lakes, streams, and rivers.