Home › Forums › General › EHTrust/EHT Topics and Creative Real Estate Financing › New York Court
September 15, 2008 at 2:00 pm #17328
alan dale grossMember
Now they have changed their mind and simply don’t want to live there. We put the house up for sale, with no luck. We lowered the price with no luck. Then the just stopped paying rent. They haven’t paid since April. They hired a lawyer from “LEGAL AID” which is a free lawyer for poor people and they plan on portraying me as a “swildler” who took money from these “poor” people who can’t afford to live there.
They CHANGED THEIR MIND.
They gave “Constructive Notice of Intent to Vacate”, prior to the July 31st expirations, below, BY NOT PAYING.
One more stickler: The trust and lease have expired as of July 31. So at the moment they are living there without a lease or anything.
If this is stated in the Trust, I wanted to bring it up.
They are trespassing.
As long as so much of this is just head games with them and their free lawyer at this stage, what would it take to call it a misunderstanding ?
They put money out.
They entered into an agreement in which forfeits are exacted.
They forfeited that money.
Unintentionally, they are
a “swildler” who took money from these “poor” people who can’t afford to live there
if anybody is.
Is any of that money around that you could PARLEY for them, into another place that they can afford ?
Out of the goodness of your heart, you’d be building them an investment vehical, out of the disaster ( misunderstanding ).
Boy, am I full of it.
Real life is so much more complicated.
Hope everything works out to the best, for everyone.
P.S. Does any of this fit into Greater New York Metropolitan Area Kathleen’s repertoire ?September 15, 2008 at 2:53 pm #17329
The Lease Agreement says:
If Tenant holds over after expiration of the term, and Landlord is directed to accept, and does so accept, rent from Tenant in the monthly amount specified in Paragraph #2 above, the tenancy shall then continue on a month-to-month basis for no longer than the term of the trust, whose trustee holds title subject property, unless landlord has been instructed by beneficiaries of such trust to renew or extend this Agreement.
If Tenant willfully and maliciously remains in possession of the Premises after expiration of the tenancy, Landlord may recover three times the amount of any damages and rent due, as punitive damages.September 20, 2008 at 1:58 am #17330
1. Where is the property? I take it that its the metropolitan area – NYC or other? NYC can be a nightmare while Long Island has summary eviction.
2. I am NOT a landlord/tenant attorney nor do I want to be one. However, I have some good people I refer out to and I can hook you up. The land trust presents a twist as the beneficiary has a possessory interest. NY considers that beneficial interest to be an economic interest in real property. Does the Possession Agreementt rise to a lease or rental agreement? I don’t know.
3. The agreement modifying or waiving rights under the warranty of habitabiliity would be void – I would argue that those provisions modifying the warranty could be void but not the entire possession agreement. There should be language in the Agreement to that effect.
I will think more on this.September 20, 2008 at 3:48 pm #17331
Kathleen, you stated…
The land trust presents a twist as the beneficiary has a possessory interest. NY considers that beneficial interest to be an economic interest in real property.
The term “economic interest” – can you please define this?
Also, the term “possessory interest” – ?
Do these equate to “equitable and/or legal interest?”
I understand the phrases in practicality and principal… but this can be
confusing in a legal sense.
It’s my understanding that NY recognizes the rule of “Equitable
If so… then, the beneficiaries have recognized interest in the trust, not
the real property (i.e. personalty, not realty), therefore…
As owners OF INTEREST IN THE LAND TRUST, not the res or corpus of that
land trust… they cannot claim equitable interest in the real estate… or any
other kind of interest in the real estate (i.e. “possessory or economic”)… but only in the trust?
Is this incorrect?
I’d be very interested in how the NARS Occupancy agreement affects a
“possessory interest” argument and, if that should legally concern us.
Rights of ownership in the real estate, both legally and equitably, remain
solely and fully in the trustees lap. “Possessory and economic” interests..
those are new to me.
Have the NY courts established a dfferent rule for these interests or the
equitable conversion principals?
Please advise… I’m working with several folks in NY state for eventual
property acquisition and need to clearly have a correct understanding of
Love your posts… thank you for the valuable contributions you always
SteveSeptember 20, 2008 at 6:18 pm #17332
Delete!September 20, 2008 at 6:42 pm #17333
You can’t say “regardless of the state”! Doing so puts you in jeopardy. The treatment of land trusts does vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and there is not going to be one definitive answer across the board for the entire country.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.