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.
Hello, everyone. I have one heck of a crazy issue going on right now, and I'm desperately in need of help. Here's the story in brief:
My girlfriend and I currently live together in a small one-bedroom in Manhattan. My girlfriend wanted to upgrade to a larger place, and also wanted to live with other people, so we looked for a new apartment with another couple. We secured the help of a brokerage firm that was excellent in terms of setting up appointments and showing us apartments. It was made very, very clear that ALL FOUR OF US would be living in the new apartment. Multiple times. After a week or so of looking, we decided on an apartment. It was decided that two of us, the two women involved, one from each couple, would be the tenants on the lease, as they had guarantors, while we did not, and the building didn't want to put three or four people on the lease. They were approved shortly. We openly talked about the four of us moving in in front of the building's entire leasing office.
It was confirmed by the broker we worked with that all four of us could live in the apartment with no issues by being perfectly legitimate roommates. I, not exactly trusting brokers, no matter how nice, asked for specifics. I was vaguely aware of 235-F, but I didn't bother to read it, since 235-F covers restrictions landlords are not allowed to make on roommates, not what they can or cannot allow beyond that of their own accord. I specifically asked if the building was allowing it. If we would be made "legal occupants," as I would be paying 1/4 of the rent, and would be registering to vote in the new district, getting mail, et cetera. The broker double checked with the building's Building Manager, whom I, quite foolishly, did not speak to directly. He told me that the building manager was absolutely fine with it, and that there would be no issues whatsoever. We even followed up again on the day we read the lease, as, when I got to the section mentioning 235-F, I read 235-F online, and then sent it to the broker, asking, again, "are you SURE this will not be an issue?" He once again says it won't be, without addressing 235-F.
After the lease was signed, the other male in this equation called and asked the leasing office what we would have to do to start the roommate process. The woman who ran the leasing office had absolutely no idea what he was talking about, and told him that she would not allow anyone else to become legal occupants. When he informed her that the Building Manger had signed off on it, she said that the BM was giving her a "different story."
To put it mildly, I went nuclear on the broker, demanding to know what on Earth was happening. He contacted the BM, who told him that we should never have spoken to this other woman, and that she had chewed him out. This does not sound good to me: why was the BM keeping things from other people? And, hilariously, the woman in leasing is new, having come on AFTER we viewed the apartment and applied, and never met us. So, the broker engages in a crazy bout of doublespeak, telling me that we shouldn't worry about it, because the BM and the doormen will "know about it." I had very, VERY clearly said up front I wanted nothing to do with any shady business, and that I did not want to sneak in and out of my own apartment or be in danger of being thrown out of my own home. I follow the law and the rules, thank you very much. He says, again, that it won't be an issue. I ask, directly, "is this illegal?" He says that it's legal. I reread 235-F at this point, much more carefully, and that's when I find out about the restriction on more than one tenant on the lease: they are not required by law to put a non-immediate family member on in that case. In short, the building can't be forced to do anything here.
Our current lease is up in a few days. I will be functionally homeless after that, thanks to this, paying my part of the rent on an apartment I'm not allowed to live in. it's been suggested that we might be able to convince the leasing office to put one of us on as an occupant, but there's no guarantee of that. In short: what the high holy heck do we do? What CAN we do? I genuinely feel like my life, which was pretty nice a month ago, is falling apart before my eyes, and there's nothing I can do to stop it.
Hi Friend. Sounds like you got yourself in quite a situation. From what I can understand, the fault completely falls in the hands of the brokerage company. However, this won't help you when it comes to your building.
I really would not worry about it though....From what you wrote, it is clear that you do not feel comfortable in this situation. This is NYC though and people do this all the time. The reason why I decided to answer this is because my mom is a struggling artist, so needless to say she does not exactly make a nice salary. She lives in NYC and has been living with roommates almost all her life, even when I was a kid. We have lived in walk-ups, duplexes, doormen buildings and everything else NYC provides. You can take my word for it that we never had an issue. At the end of the day, all landlords or companies care about is getting paid. YES there are a few situations where people can get evicted but you would have to be a pretty bad tenant (not paying rent, making a lot of noise, etc.) for them to say anything to you or evict you.
Sounds like you live in a doorman building. Doormen are people too. Say hi to them when you come in and they will remember your face without questioning you. Like I said, people do this all over the city and elsewhere.
Sucks how everything turned out, but in the end you will be fine. For the future, avoid brokers at all costs. My mom just talked to friends of friends of friends...she was as free spirited as they come though. But still talk to friends and see if they know any supers or building owners to go around the scummy brokers. Like I said, at the end of the day all they care about is getting paid! Good luck man.
Hello, everyone. I have one heck of a crazy issue going on right now, and I'm desperately in need of help. Here's the story in brief:
My girlfriend and I currently live together in a small one-bedroom in Manhattan. My girlfriend wanted to upgrade to a larger place, and also wanted to live with other people, so we looked for a new apartment with another couple. We secured the help of a brokerage firm that was excellent in terms of setting up appointments and showing us apartments. It was made very, very clear that ALL FOUR OF US would be living in the new apartment. Multiple times. After a week or so of looking, we decided on an apartment. It was decided that two of us, the two women involved, one from each couple, would be the tenants on the lease, as they had guarantors, while we did not, and the building didn't want to put three or four people on the lease. They were approved shortly. We openly talked about the four of us moving in in front of the building's entire leasing office.
It was confirmed by the broker we worked with that all four of us could live in the apartment with no issues by being perfectly legitimate roommates. I, not exactly trusting brokers, no matter how nice, asked for specifics. I was vaguely aware of 235-F, but I didn't bother to read it, since 235-F covers restrictions landlords are not allowed to make on roommates, not what they can or cannot allow beyond that of their own accord. I specifically asked if the building was allowing it. If we would be made "legal occupants," as I would be paying 1/4 of the rent, and would be registering to vote in the new district, getting mail, et cetera. The broker double checked with the building's Building Manager, whom I, quite foolishly, did not speak to directly. He told me that the building manager was absolutely fine with it, and that there would be no issues whatsoever. We even followed up again on the day we read the lease, as, when I got to the section mentioning 235-F, I read 235-F online, and then sent it to the broker, asking, again, "are you SURE this will not be an issue?" He once again says it won't be, without addressing 235-F.
After the lease was signed, the other male in this equation called and asked the leasing office what we would have to do to start the roommate process. The woman who ran the leasing office had absolutely no idea what he was talking about, and told him that she would not allow anyone else to become legal occupants. When he informed her that the Building Manger had signed off on it, she said that the BM was giving her a "different story."
Even in your own words above, it is never stated by anyone that at anytime would you become a "legal occupant" named on the lease.
Is that what you were expecting?
From your words, I glean that you were actually told that the girlfriends w/b the named tenants, and that the two boyfriends would NOT be named on the lease, but would have no issue living and occupying the premises WITH the two named tenants, your girlfriends.
So, what's the problem? Fairly standard circumstance.
Seems like you wish to be a tenant on the lease. Yet, it is rather evident that you do not meet the building's rental standards, and the LL will not allow you to be named a tenant. Quite reasonable. LL's only want individuals who can be financially responsible for the lease terms. Apparently, you are not.
At no point have you shown that you were told otherwise. I suspect you were told you can live at the premises w/o issue, and, it appears you can. You live there and you pay your portion of the rent to your *girlfriend*! She then, in turn will pay her half of the rent to the LL. The other couple will do, precisely, the same!
Issues?
Quote:
To put it mildly, I went nuclear on the broker, demanding to know what on Earth was happening. He contacted the BM, who told him that we should never have spoken to this other woman, and that she had chewed him out. This does not sound good to me: why was the BM keeping things from other people? And, hilariously, the woman in leasing is new, having come on AFTER we viewed the apartment and applied, and never met us.
There is a difference between "managing" the building and "leasing" the apartments in the building. The building manager manages the function of the building and has NOTHING to do with "leasing"! The leasing manager works with the outside broker/agent to rent apartments; and, likely has a required knowledge of rental regulation, which the building manger is not required to have.
The woman probaly gave him what for, because he over stepped his responsibility in providing you any assurances. He should not have gotten involved and/or referred you to the lease manager, who, I presume, is the woman. In any event, it appears the only assurance you were given, was that you would have no issue living at the premises. I do not believe you were given any assurance that you w/b named on the lease in any capacity.
Quote:
So, the broker engages in a crazy bout of doublespeak, telling me that we shouldn't worry about it, because the BM and the doormen will "know about it."
True. All parties involved w/b fully aware of your residency in the premises. Both the building manager, doorman, and I presume other staff will treat you as a resident. Do you think you need to be on the lease to be thusly treated? You do not.
I do not believe there was any doublespeak by the agent. The agent likely explained precisely as I have above.
Quote:
I had very, VERY clearly said up front I wanted nothing to do with any shady business, and that I did not want to sneak in and out of my own apartment or be in danger of being thrown out of my own home. I follow the law and the rules, thank you very much. He says, again, that it won't be an issue.
There is no "shady business". You *can* live there, but you cannot be a named tenant, the LL will not allow it.
It is not your apartment, the apartment belongs to the LL. The two girlfriends have the legal right to occupy the premises for the term of the lease. They also have the right to allow both boyfriends to occupy the premises with them. Yet, they, the two girlfriends, will be solely and jointly responsible for the lease terms. The two boyfriends are not responsible in any way, to the LL, for the lease terms.
You live in the premises at the permisson and behest of the girlfriends (both of them!).
Quote:
I ask, directly, "is this illegal?" He says that it's legal. I reread 235-F at this point, much more carefully, and that's when I find out about the restriction on more than one tenant on the lease: they are not required by law to put a non-immediate family member on in that case. In short, the building can't be forced to do anything here.
First, you are being COMPLETELY anal here!
Second, it is legal. It is legal for you to occupy the premises w/o being named on the lease. There is no issue in regard to legality.
Third, if you wish to rely upon and reference some legal clause, then it would only be considerate to provide the copy or a link! Your make reference as if it is normal for everyone to be so familiar. We are not. I have years of legal experience and have only a vague idea of the specific clause and what it pertains to.
I strongly suggest you are reading and interpreting wrongly, as there is NO such restriction as you state it.
You are quite correct. They are NOT so required!!!
The reality here is that YOU *thought* you could outsmart the LL, the BM, the lease manager and the RE Agent! You were well aware that you did not meet the financial requirement to rent in the building, that you did not have a Gurantor, that you could rely on your GF and her Guarantor to secure the rental, and then, after the fact, compel the LL to name you as a "legal occupant", thereby providing you full legal right to the premises!
No one assured you of this. It would appear that it was YOU who attempted to "doublespeak" such an assurance from the parties involved!
In other words, you outsmarted yourself, tried an 'end around', but dropped the ball!! Probably, a bit too much sports speak for you to comprehend, sorry.
So, now you can live in the premises, but you have no legal right to occupy the premises, and, you live there at the mercy of BOTH girlfriends!!
Quote:
Our current lease is up in a few days. I will be functionally homeless after that, thanks to this, paying my part of the rent on an apartment I'm not allowed to live in.
Stop exaggerating. You are not homeless. You can live in the new apartment with your girlfriend and the other couple. Which I presume is a two bedroom. If it is a one bedroom, you may have occupancy issues, maybe not.
Quote:
...it's been suggested that we might be able to convince the leasing office to put one of us on as an occupant, but there's no guarantee of that.
I believe I have been clear, that will not be happening. Tenant or Occupant, it gives you legal rights the LL does not wish you to, obviously, have. Again, you are attempting to get around the fact that YOU are not financially qualified.
Quote:
In short: what the high holy heck do we do? What CAN we do? I genuinely feel like my life, which was pretty nice a month ago, is falling apart before my eyes, and there's nothing I can do to stop it.
Stop the BS! Get your **** together and act like a MAN! If you can't afford a thing stop trying to buy it. You s/h simply rented an apartment within your financial and credit means. Simple as that.
There is no real issue, except you'd better keep you GF happy, otherwise you WILL be homeless; and, BTW, don't **** off the the other GF, cause if she wants you out, out you go!
JFYI, if your GF pisses you off, you can just walk out w/o any legal obligation to the LL. Though, GF could sue you for your half of the rental obligation, as you have an impied agreement, if not an outright oral agreement.
Yeah dude, seems like you are making mountains out of mole hills. If it was so important for you to be on the lease, why didn't you do it from the beginning? Obviously you knew there was some sort of 'manuevering' going on.
Your gf is on the lease. Unless you are worried about her kicking you out, I don't get what the issue is.
It's even less of an issue, because once you reside in the apartment for thirty consecutive days, it becomes your legal residence, even though you are not on the lease. That means you cannot be kicked out by the landlord, your girlfriend or the other girlfriend without them going through with a legal eviction. Even if you don't pay a dime in rent, it's still considered your residence after 30 days. So you get all the benefits of the apartment with none of the legal responsibilities. What are you complaining about?
It's even less of an issue, because once you reside in the apartment for thirty consecutive days, it becomes your legal residence, even though you are not on the lease. That means you cannot be kicked out by the landlord, your girlfriend or the other girlfriend without them going through with a legal eviction. Even if you don't pay a dime in rent, it's still considered your residence after 30 days. So you get all the benefits of the apartment with none of the legal responsibilities. What are you complaining about?
Just to be accurrate, such a person w/h to PROVE residency to be protected under the law. Sometimes, that is not so easy!
Obviously, no lease. Any utilities in the person's name, no? Then what proof, which the court will find acceptable and convincing? Will building personnel testify for the person, unlikely!
If one cannot and/or fails to so prove, then one is not a legal resident.
In a eviction proceeding of a non resident, a hearing to determine legal residence w/b the first hurdle. In cases of deep pocketed LLs, investigators w/b engaged, and any hint of residency elsewhere w/b brought to the court's attention. True or not, the tactic is to wear the tenant down, as the tenant will be required to answer and respond. Tactic usually works, when tenants defend themselves and/or hire incompetent counsel.
Jfyi, this is one reason getting a NYS driver's license works in a newcomer's favor. A lot of times people fail to change their licenses and that works against them in the above circumstances.
You claim residency, but there is no lease, no utilities, and an out of state driver's license. Pretty convincing, if not true.
Comprehend, LL attorneys know precisely what to look for and precisely how to present a case. Reality may be one thing, *proving* it is another!
Just to be accurrate, such a person w/h to PROVE residency to be protected under the law. Sometimes, that is not so easy!
Obviously, no lease. Any utilities in the person's name, no? Then what proof, which the court will find acceptable and convincing? Will building personnel testify for the person, unlikely!
If one cannot and/or fails to so prove, then one is not a legal resident.
In a eviction proceeding of a non resident, a hearing to determine legal residence w/b the first hurdle. In cases of deep pocketed LLs, investigators w/b engaged, and any hint of residency elsewhere w/b brought to the court's attention. True or not, the tactic is to wear the tenant down, as the tenant will be required to answer and respond. Tactic usually works, when tenants defend themselves and/or hire incompetent counsel.
Jfyi, this is one reason getting a NYS driver's license works in a newcomer's favor. A lot of times people fail to change their licenses and that works against them in the above circumstances.
You claim residency, but there is no lease, no utilities, and an out of state driver's license. Pretty convincing, if not true.
Comprehend, LL attorneys know precisely what to look for and precisely how to present a case. Reality may be one thing, *proving* it is another!
My post was to stress that eviction has to be done officially of such a person, not that the person will ultimately win in court as a resident. Of course proof of address has to be submitted before the judge.
I have known people to call the police to kick out the "squatter" and the police won't do it and they are stunned because person's name is not on the lease and the person has not been paying rent. I am just saying it's not so easy to get rid of someone that is not on the lease but has lived in the apartment for 30 or more consecutive days. Usually the unwanted resident/roommate WILL leave the apartment eventually because it is the only sane thing to do and they just need the time to do so, unlike being immediately thrown out at the whim of whoever is on the lease or the whim of the landlord. In your post you made it sound like his GF or the other guy's GF could instantly toss him out on a whim if they got mad at him. I was just clarifying that it's not so easy and requires due process.
They can use mail received at that address like bills (credit cards, cell phone, etc.).
Here is what you do- take a deep breath- everything will be fine.
Move into the new apartment - pay the rent- thats all you need to do
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.
