Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I meant before. It's hard to give advice about something when you don't know all the details. To me it sounded odd that suddenly the tenant wasn't paying the new LL when in reality, he wasn't even paying the old LL. You got yourself into something knowingly and now you want advice on how to get out of it when your lawyer should have advised not to buy the building in the first place.
It is not necessary that a poster open his viens and bleed out for you.
Why he bought the building is irrelevant to the issue of a nonpaying commercial tenant! An L&T w/n ask such a question. The only thing relevant are the facts pertaining to the lease and the failure to pay.
When I stated, "w/o specifics", the only specifics I was curious about was in whose name was the lease, an individual, a corporation, a limited partnership, and who signed as the agent/representatve/officer.
If the court petition names the wrong party, then the papers are defective. Ghe Tenant can show in court at the very last moment and claim, this ain't me! If true, the Judgment will be vacated.
It is NOT an attorney's place to tell a client NOT to purchase a property. You are wrong in this. It is the attorney's rsponsibility to do due diligence IF the clients asks and pays; and IF the attorney has fhe knowledge and experience to conduct due diligence. If he is not, a good attorney s/b capable of engaging professionals who can.
A nonpaying tenant is NOT generally a reason to not purchase. Going by that logic, you wouldn't purchase if there was no tenant and an empty space.
Some buyer will want a building with an existing and ongoing rentroll. Some will want the space for their purposes. Some may want to find their own tenant. Some may want to improve the property and potential for higher rent.
There are a myriad of reasons to purchase. It would appear the OP wanted the property for reasons other than just income.
Of course, if worse comes to worst, non-renewal of the lease in December is a final out.
But yeah, losing 7 months rent is a bummer.
Do you have a prospective tenant or plans for that storefront?
That's what I thought, but now I'm starting to wonder: even if the lease is up I'm assuming that I cannot personally force them out (legally).
Which would mean that I'd have to go through this whole eviction procedure again, although presumably by the time it got to a judge (2 months minimum it seems) I'd get the go ahead for a marshal to lock them out.
At which point I would have to pay to move their equipment out and store for one month!
It is not necessary that a poster open his viens and bleed out for you.
Why he bought the building is irrelevant to the issue of a nonpaying commercial tenant! An L&T w/n ask such a question. The only thing relevant are the facts pertaining to the lease and the failure to pay.
When I stated, "w/o specifics", the only specifics I was curious about was in whose name was the lease, an individual, a corporation, a limited partnership, and who signed as the agent/representatve/officer.
If the court petition names the wrong party, then the papers are defective. Ghe Tenant can show in court at the very last moment and claim, this ain't me! If true, the Judgment will be vacated.
It is NOT an attorney's place to tell a client NOT to purchase a property. You are wrong in this. It is the attorney's rsponsibility to do due diligence IF the clients asks and pays; and IF the attorney has fhe knowledge and experience to conduct due diligence. If he is not, a good attorney s/b capable of engaging professionals who can.
A nonpaying tenant is NOT generally a reason to not purchase. Going by that logic, you wouldn't purchase if there was no tenant and an empty space.
Some buyer will want a building with an existing and ongoing rentroll. Some will want the space for their purposes. Some may want to find their own tenant. Some may want to improve the property and potential for higher rent.
There are a myriad of reasons to purchase. It would appear the OP wanted the property for reasons other than just income.
Well said, jc. I appreciate the advice, and will certainly hire a layer who specializes in evictions.
Not sure I mentioned that my family and I are renovating the 2nd & 3rd floors to move into ourselves, so as you say, it's not just about money, it's a home.
I've talked with a landlord who owns or manages multiple buildings and heard a lot of bad news about how long a tenant (with a sympathetic judge) can prolong things. I'm hoping that a judge will at least require that the tenant put aside money in an escrow account.
The funny thing is, in spite of all this, in spite of multiple headaches over the condition of the building that the inspector didn't find (crumbling brick & rotting lintels beneath the new sheetrock, etc), 100 years of neglect, a small, weirdly-shaped lot, landmark status (making any renovations that can be seen from the street much more costly and time-consuming)- in spite of all this -
I still love this building!
Go figure.
Last edited by humboldt; 04-19-2012 at 09:01 PM..
Reason: to explain further
Yes, that's the source of frustration, for sure.
I talked with an eviction lawyer who thought I could accept partial payment, because the judge would order me to accept any payment offered by the tenant during a hearing. He didn't think accepting money before that would prejudice the case.
But frankly, I'd be shocked if they offered anything. I've never seen penny-pinchers like this bunch.
The reason I mentioned never seeing the father, and his son claiming that he's in China, is that his is the only name on the lease. The people who are there and interact with me aren't mentioned on the lease. What happens if the father is unavailable long-term?
At any rate, the lawyer advised me to continue waiting for the judgement, but said I could hire him for the next portion of the case, making an appearance in front of the judge. Hopefully someone appointed in the Bloomberg administration.
How did you find this attorney? You said "eviction lawyer", why do you say he is an "eviction" lawyer?
Understand, attorneys are like doctors, they specialize (at least the good ones)! You wouldn't go to a foot doctor (pediatrist) or an internist for your heart, you would go to a cardiologist.
You need a Landlord-Tenant attorney or a Real Estate Litigationist. In either case it should be all they do all day every day. They don't do divorces, they don't do accidents!
The L&T guy s/b cheapest, but make sure they have *commercial* experience, many just deal with residential.
Real Estate Litigators specialize in more complicated issues and s/b quite versed in commercial issues. They will also handle less complicated issues, such as L&T in service to their clients. In commercial issues both parties tend to be capable of funding a court fight.
I ask because, I question the wisdom of accepting a partial payment, or any payment at this point.
The basic point is, particularly in the case of receiving a 'default judgment', the tenant can come with an OSC and claim that he has been paying, and/or that there is some sort of (payout) agreement, and BAM! Here is proof, last week's payment receipt. Now, the LL has to explaing, and the court has to figure out what's what.
You ALWAYS want your case to be clear and unambiguous!
For example, say the tenant owes 3 months rent, you take the tenant to court for eviction. Month 4, the tenant offers rent and you accept. In court the Tenant can claim that he and you agreed to settle for this month's rent and a month and a half thereafter until the arrearage is paid.
The judge will ask is it true?
You'll say, no, the tenant is a liar.
The tenant will say you are the liar, and the rent receipt represents the agreement.
Now, the court will need to determine what is what. Not knowing which, the court will be inclined to push a settlement along the lines the tenant claimed, which in a normal circumstance is a good workout. Understand, the court's aim is to bring parties together.
All avioided by not taking the money. You can always sue later in small claims (depending upon the amount); or you can ask the judge to amend the judgment (if there is a money judgment).
That's what I thought, but now I'm starting to wonder: even if the lease is up I'm assuming that I cannot personally force them out (legally).
Which would mean that I'd have to go through this whole eviction procedure again, although presumably by the time it got to a judge (2 months minimum it seems) I'd get the go ahead for a marshal to lock them out.
At which point I would have to pay to move their equipment out and store for one month!
This liberal is slowly turning Teapartier...
I see. So YOU made a bad deal, paying below market value for a crappy old horse that you bet would make you pots of gold. You didn't do any research. You didn't hire a lawyer. You know NOTHING about the eviction procedures in NY.
But somehow it's the fault of liberals? The government should come and help you, mr poor sympathetic business man who entered willingly into a contract knowing the risks.
Why? You've got a good capitalist on your first floor...he is maximizing his proifits to the fullest extent of the law. He is a teabagger's DREAM. Your suffering and financial loss doesn't enter into the equation...it's CAPITALISM'S survival of the fittest on a small level. Your tenant wins because he CAN and he's ruthless.
If he is stronger than you, then teaparty standards whould have him kick YOU out, perhaps even gun you down when you walk into his shop...he can claim he's "standing his ground."
I see. So YOU made a bad deal, paying below market value for a crappy old horse that you bet would make you pots of gold. You didn't do any research. You didn't hire a lawyer. You know NOTHING about the eviction procedures in NY.
But somehow it's the fault of liberals? The government should come and help you, mr poor sympathetic business man who entered willingly into a contract knowing the risks.
Humbolt is right. Liberals aka democrats pass policies that are anti-business with a ish load of regulations. That's why if you're a hard working and honest business man, you should ALWAYS vote REPUBLICAN as republicans understand that businesses create jobs and keep the economy going. Republicans pass pro-business policies that's in the best interest of business owners and the economy. Republicans represent big and small business. They get a bad rep for siding with BIG BUSINESS companies such as oil companies (which I'm not a fan of) but nevertheless, the positives out weigh the negatives. Besides, you can thank NY republican politicians such as Guilliani, Pataki, and Bruno for cleaning up NYC and making it a better place to live. Republican leadership did, not liberal democrats.
^ so if republicans had their way, there would be
a whole lot more low-paying jobs with no
regulations, which equal more oppurtunity for all?
lol..
There is no such thing as 100% no regulation. If the republicans had their way, they would allow the free market to do what it does best...determine the price of whatever object or labor.
Also, republicans want a small and less invasive government while the democrats want a bigger government which requires more tax payer money to maintain. The larger the pig (gov't) gets, the more you must feed it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
