Perhaps it was inevitable that after 98 years, the middle class homeowner in New York (and elsewhere) should have to shoulder more burdensome tax liabilities through the loss of the Home Mortgage Interest Deduction. According to early reports, Congress and the President are about to wage war over removing deductions for interest on mortgage payments.
See one article here.
Bottom Line– the Federal Government needs more money, and the little guy, mortgaged to the hilt is gonna pay.
As life becomes complicated, you become incapacitated, you are living alone, or if you just want to be prepared for emergencies; it is very important to organize your important papers so that loved ones can pick up the pieces in a moment’s notice. When I speak to a client who wants to prepare a will, I often tell that client to gather all of your important papers and information into one place so that another person might know how to find such information for you.
But, what is that “important paper” that should be gathered up and stored in an easy to access location?
Here’s a partial list of items you can use to get “organized.”
So, you signed the retainer with an attorney, litigated a case or resolved the matter, but now have a fee dispute with your lawyer over fees, malpractice, or something else. You are considering a lawsuit against that attorney, or that attorney may have sued you to recover her fees. You look at your retainer agreement and see that in contains a provision requiring arbitration under Part 137 (22 NYCRR 137 et seq.). What is that, and if you win, does your attorney get the right to re-litigate the finding of the fee arbitrators.
The answer to whether an attorney may litigate the arbitration finding and request a new trial (“de novo“) in the courts is a complex issue that has actually been litigated by attorneys seeking to avoid the findings of the fee arbitrators. Try to follow the chain of thought:
First, either party may reject a Part 137 arbitration award and sue for a de novo trial.
The plaintiff in McColgan v. Brewer owned a part of what was a larger parcel of property owned by M. Kelley. During construction of the New York State Thruway, the state of New York acquired the middle part of the original Kelley parcel.
As a result, Kelley owned two separate parcels, one west of the Thruway and the other east of the Thruway. The physical layout required Kelley, and now the plaintiff, to use Albert’s Lane to reach Route 32. Kelley’s southern neighbors entered into a series of right-of-way agreements with the owners of the northern parcels to secure access to Route 21 via Alberts Lane in 1953. Kelley was never a party to these right-of-way agreements granting an easement between her property and Route 32.
The plaintiff purchased the Kelley parcels. Prior to purchasing the subject property, the plaintiff (1) hired the defendants Rothe Engineering & Construction and Donald Brewer to conduct a survey of the subject property, (2) hired the Attorney defendant Philip Kirschner to determine if the easterly portion of the property had access to Route 32 via Alberts Lane, and (3) obtained insurance from the defendant Chicago Title Insurance Company through a local agent, Abbacy Abstract, to insure against any losses that he would incur if the landlocked portion of the property did not have access to Route 21.
In today’s real estate market of short sales, mortgages underwater, depressed prices and a buyer’s market, where financing can be a tricky and arduous journey there is one contingency that may protect the buyer– the appraisal contingency, often negotiated by attorneys for real estate buyers.
Stated simply, the appraisal contingency is designed to give a buyer the right to cancel the contract if the home does not appraise for the price the buyer agreed to pay. Take the case of a Florida couple who contracted to buy a house from for $620,000. The purchase and sale contract provided that the sale was “contingent upon this property appraising for no less than $620,000.” The purchasers commissioned an appraisal which apparently came in at $560,000, and refused to close.
In response, the Sellers secured an appraisal which valued the real estate at $635,000. The sellers sued for breach of contract, arguing that any appraisal of $620,000 or more obligated the purchasers to buy the house. The purchasers argued that since it appraised for less (by their appraiser) they could terminate. The Florida appellate court favored the buyers, ruling: “In our view, ‘appraising for no less than $620,000’ means that no appraisal may be less than $620,000,” the court ruled.
So, you want to buy a house, condominium, cooperative apartment or vacant land with your significant other in New York. You have been serious about this life partner for years, but you aren’t bound by the typical bonds of legal matrimony.
Did you consult with your real estate attorney, did you ask that attorney about a partnership or “co-habitation” agreement? What are you going to do if you are no longer interested in “cohabiting?” Too many times, people don’t ask these questions, and get burned later. Take for instance the common predicament of this individual.
As a real estate lawyer, I always ask unmarried couples whether they want a basic partnership agreement about what happens when they dissolve their relationship from a real estate perspective. In addition to a real estate partnership agreement, non-married couples should consider a cohabitation agreement, which is a contract that includes provisions about each partner’s separate property, debts and financial responsibilities and spells out the division of goods, property and responsibilities should the relationship dissolve.
Should a lawyer be granted a continuance of a trial because his wife is expecting a baby?
Unfortunately, some lawyers didn’t think so, and the expectant father was required to make a motion to federal court to adjourn a trial. The Court, much to its credit, granted the adjournment with a dose of reality, morality and compassion rarely seen. Read the decision here. Read the decision here.
Bottom line– we are all part of the human condition, even if we are litigators.
A famous former New York City mayor prosecuted “quality of life” crimes to “clean up the streets,” but what if that enforcement mentality came to the streets and sidewalks of Nyack. This month, a local resident saw my article in the Nyack Villager, and asked,
My problem is with property owners that are allowed to grow their hedges and shrubberies well over the edge of the sidewalks. I have found the worst violators are along . . . . . Up to a foot of sidewalk is lost in places because vegetation has grown without proper maintenance. In places, two people who want to walk abreast have to go into single file…or worse, one has to walk in the street. At this point, it is more than just an annoyance, it is a safety issue. . . . .[Name withheld by me].
As someone who commutes by foot, I understand the blight of overgrown hedges, cracked and damaged sidewalks, and icy patches near down spouts pouring onto the sidewalk. What are the rules that govern our sidewalks, and whose responsibility is it to fix the problem? It turns out that the Village of Nyack has very strong sidewalk laws designed to make them clean and safe– the question is whether we as a community are going to enforce those laws.
Do you remember the 1990 release of Pacific Heights where the young couple renovates their home and takes a nightmare tenant who refuses to leave. Whether you are a tenant or a homeowner, these river village towns in suburban New York incubate potential problems between unrelated families living under the same roof, sharing utilities, driveways, even entrances. What a complex relationship.
At the core is the landlord’s ownership interest in the land, which may be devised, lent or leased to a tenant. In exchange for paying rent, the tenant is supposed to be able to “quietly enjoy” the “demised space” without interference from the landlord, but subject to certain basic written or unwritten rules. Sometimes the tenant fails to pay rent, or the landlord fails to provide a clean, safe, warm place to live. Both parties jealously guard their rights (their castle), and feel indignant when the other fails to live up to their end of the “bargain.”
That bargain generally comes in two forms, either with a written lease or a “month to month” tenancy. Generally, a written lease has well developed language setting forth in plain language the rent, security, term, location, and the nuances of daily living by which the landlord expects the tenant to abide. Two rules of thumb for landlords: the security should be sequestered in a separate bank account even for a two family house; and the right to retain it at the end of the lease is not a given, meaning you have to follow the rules if there is damage.
Almost universally as a house closing or refinance closing approaches, I am asked why the itemized cost for “title insurance” is so high. Sometimes, clients even tell me that they do not have to pay for “title insurance” because they are putting more than twenty percent down, but have confused Private Mortgage Insurance (PMI) with “title insurance.” So, what is title insurance and why do you need it?
To begin with, PMI is insurance designed to protect lenders against losses should the borrower default, and is required by lenders for virtually all borrowers who put less than twenty percent (20%) down. It has nothing to do with who owns or has “title” to the property, and who insures that no one is going to claim against it.
Title insurance is a contract where an insurer guarantees a lender or a home owner that there are no known claims or defects in title caused by past events such as mortgages, liens, or possession of property by another person not the owner. Title insurance companies search public records to develop and document the chain of title and to detect known claims (defects) in the title. For example, the title search may identify an old home equity loan that is still outstanding or that a contracting firm filed a mechanics lien against the owner years before. If they missed those defects, then the title insurance company would pay to have them fixed, even if it meant litigation.
New York Real Estate Lawyer Blog