Articles Posted in General Interest

In this age of ultra-competitive, make a buck at any price advisers, we have lost our focus upon what a good “fiduciary” should be providing to their real estate, mortgage, estate, insurance and other types of recommendations. What is it that you should expect from your broker or salesman when they sell you that insurance policy, annuity, or mortgage?

Well, it depends upon the type of the relationship, but here is an interesting article that provides a “stop gap” or screening device for consumers to ask their money managers, their attorneys, their mortgage brokers, here in New York and all over the country.

The Bottom Line– you should expect that the person selling you products has your best interest in mind (not their profits).

As reported in prior entries on this blog, corporate, real estate, and estate planning attorneys in New York are concerned about the ramifications of the new Power of Attorney laws. The New York Law Journal published a recent article discussing the possible pitfalls to parties in New York. [Article— Joel Stashenko 01-22-2010].

The problems include well-established areas of commercial transactions, because they should not apply to the creation of valid proxies for the voting of shares of stock held by investors of New York corporations and non-New York corporations.

Practically speaking, the new form are very unwieldy because they require notarization of signatures by an agent being designated as having power of attorney.

For years most attorneys representing sellers of real estate in New York State have been counseling not to complete a Property Disclosure Statement. This recent case is an example of why, in New York, the Property Condition Disclosure Statements (PCDS) can cause trouble.

Sellers in New York are required to either “disclose” what they know on a 32 question Property Disclosure Statement, or give the buyers a $500 credit in lieu of such disclosure. The problem, however, is that these property “disclosures” are mini-representations, which can lead to all sorts of claims for misrepresentation, fraud, or concealment. The question for the disgruntled buyer is always whether, when completed and delivered, the owners-sellers may be liable for buyer actual damages stemming from any willful failure to describe the property conditions asked about on the “form.”

In one recent case, the the buyers purchased a residential property from the defendants in “as is” condition after having been given notice through the form PCDS that the Sellers (defendants) of a previous kerosene leak on the property. Shortly after taking possession of the property, however, the plaintiffs discovered that the septic system had failed, the heating system was inadequately established, debris had been left on the property, kerosene had spilled in the basement, and the house was infested with mice.

So your thinking of living in Pearl River, Rockland County. Originally called Muddy Brook, the town was renamed in around 1870 after a resident said he had discovered pearls in mussels from the waterway.

The community boasts wonderful people, active community involvement and modestly priced homes. Read a recent New York Times Article here, and hire the very best real estate attorneys in Rockland County.

I saw this in a Texas case recently. On November 23, 2009, a lawyer filed a property litigation alleging that his neighbor, a Church Cathedral was a private and public nuisance because they essentially operated church-sponsored services for homeless people. It seems that the complaining land owners objected to the Church providing homeless services nearby (such services included free meals and counseling).

Arguing the Church services (and their clients-homeless people) constituted a “private nuisance,” the plaintiffs (attorneys) described those who were served by the homeless center as “derelicts.”

One of the patrons of the services, a former navy officer, sued the attorneys for defamation, discriminatory practices, emotional distress, and mental anguish. In his colorful description of the attorneys, he claimed that they had a “twisted heart full of unwashed socks, with a soul full of gunk Grinch type rappie act(s).” He is seeking $2.4 million in actual and punitive damages and a published apology.

Real Property Taxes are at the front of everyone’s mind these days because property values in New York have declined so dramatically. Did you know that the tools to grieve your taxes are often right at your finger tips.

For example, in Dutchess County, the Real Property Tax Service Agency’s Parcel Access system provides tax assessment information for your parcel and your neighbor’s parcel, including development plans, property tax estimates and other information supplied by local municipal governments. Updated twice a year to coincide with the submission of Tentative Assessment Rolls every May and every July of each year, the Parcel Access allows Search Tools by type of property, name of debtor, and by map.

The website’s main objective is to function as a tool for real estate buyers and sellers to have access to and view assessment information. If a seller disagrees with a listed assessment, however, value the home owner may “grieve” those taxes by seeking a review first by the assessor and then by a formal review with the Board of Assessment Review.

Last month, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that the state of New York may legally seize private land for private developers use. In the 6-1 decision, the court allowed the seizure of a 22-acre plot located in downtown Brooklyn – effectively allowing the Atlantic Yards Project to proceed – reasoning it would allow for improvements on the “blighted conditions” of the property. The recent ruling falls in line with the 2005 decision by the Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London that similarly allowed a corporation to seize private homes and businesses to build a research campus.

The New York court’s ruling has raised arguments from opponents that ownership rights amount to being worthless if a government deems private land for the ‘public good.’ The Atlantic Yards Project, headed by Forest City Ratner Cos., seeks to develop office towers, apartments, and most notably an $900 million arena for the NBA’s New Jersey Nets. The only dissenter on the court’s bench stated, “It might be possible to debate whether a sport stadium open to the public is a ‘public use’ in the traditional sense, but the renting of commercial and residential space by a private developer clearly is not.” The New York Court of Appeals, however, ultimately ruled that the definition of ‘blight’ is a matter for the legislature, not the courts, to change.

You hear the old adage– “if its too good to be true . . . . ” Homeowners in New York and elsewhere should be on the look out for the newest form of fraud on the rise–“house theft.” Under various permutations of the fraud, con men and thieves conspire to to take ‘ownership’ of a home through various scams and false documents. In one version, the group acquires a house then ‘sells’ it to their associates, who obtain a loan from unsuspecting banks. The fictitious ‘seller,’ gets paid the loan proceeds, and then shares the sale proceeds with the fraudulent ‘buyer.’

The FBI estimates that from 2007 to the 2008, the reported cases of house theft have jumped 36% to an estimated 64,000 incidents. House theft, also known as title theft, most frequently occurs in larger urban areas particularly in cities with many vacant properties such as Detroit and Miami.

In reaction, several new online services offer free help to protect homeowners from house theft. Among its free services, www.ePropertyWatch.com provides informal house appraisals, monitors public real estate documents, and alerts homeowners to possible criminal activity. ePropertyWatch will also provide information on recent sales and foreclosures in the user’s neighborhood and observe long-term changes in the median sale prices relative to a ZIP code.

I get calls every week from family members concerned that another family member might be abusing a power of attorney issued by an elderly or infirm client. We take these concerned calls very seriously, as did the New York State Legislature, who recently amended the General Obligations Law relating to Powers of Attorney. There are some traps for the unwary signer, however.

New York’s new power of attorney law contains language that “automatically” revokes old powers of attorney, unless you specifically state that it does NOT. If you are asked to sign a new Power of Attorney in New York after September 2009, think long and hard about the effect of signing such form. For example, if you are a recording artist, did you sign an agency agreement; a real estate partner, a power to the managing partner; a life insurance recipient, a right to such benefits. If so, you should be careful not to revoke any old powers of attorney.

Bottom Line– You need to be educated to be smart. Ask your attorney what the effect will be if you sign a Power of Attorney.

You owe some money on a debt, the creditor gets a judgment against you, and suddenly, your checking account is frozen by a restraining notice. That scenario is all too common, especially when we all live in a large metropolitan neighborhood, change addresses often, and sometimes don’t get copies of the lawsuit naming you as a party to the action.

New York State has recently amended its laws relating to when a creditor seeks to restrain a debtor’s bank account. Specifically, New York state law exempts certain types of income from debt collection. These exemptions include veterans’ benefits, Social Security, Social Security disability, pensions, public assistance, workers compensation, unemployment insurance, child support, as well as spousal support and maintenance. Although the New York State exemptions are intended to ensure “at-risk” New Yorkers have the means to buy food, pay rent, and have basic necessities, procedural loopholes have increasingly led creditors to freezing bank accounts containing legally exempt income.

As a result, New York has recently enacted the Exempt Income Protection Act (EIPA). The EIPA limits creditors’ ability to restrain exempt funds stipulating that banks cannot restrain the first $1,716 in a debtor’s account if he or she does not receive government benefits or assistance.

Contact Information