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.
The 58 yr old woman could have gone to a mortgage company and said I'd like to take over the mortgage. However, this is not a mortgage (all though rent control acts like one) but it is a contract, one in which the investor knows exist.
How is the LL making any profit off this underhanded thief?
Investors are the ones who get to make profits by risking their assets. The tenants have no assets, they don't own anything! This thief is using the LL's assets (as if they belonged to her) to make a profit. She has no assets of her own to generate a profit, and as such deserves nothing.
and when he purchased the property he knew that it had rent control in there.
and when he purchased the property he knew that it had rent control in there.
When he purchased the property this woman didn’t even know Tomasso. She met him as a cat sitter for one of his neighbors some 13 years after the couple purchased the building. The tenant has been dead for almost a decade.
When he purchased the property this woman didn’t even know Tomasso. She met him as a cat sitter for one of his neighbors some 13 years after the couple purchased the building. The tenant has been dead for almost a decade.
I read that and I also read that he adopted her. Is she gaming the system, yes but is it legal, yes.
and when he purchased the property he knew that it had rent control in there.
This is so different. She manipulated her way into this apartment. It is one thing if it is a true rent controlled situation, this is completely different.
One of the problems that I'm thinking, is, however, do the landlord's expenses likewise stay rent-controlled? Are all the utilities, taxes, insurance, etc, all 'frozen' at the same prices they were at when the rent was first frozen?
I'm far from a real estate expert, nor do I know much about the rent control situation in NYC (or anywhere else, for that matter), but it does seem to me that over the years, the landlord's costs will have gone up. The original tenant was grandfathered, but this new tenant snuck in (and I still don't get how she's allowed to do that). I don't know what the COL is in NYC, but even I can guess that $100 a month for rent is awfully cheap for that city--my apartment in Tulsa, Oklahoma over 20 years ago was more than that!
I can't weigh in to the overall question of rent control, but it seems to me the main argument of this particular case is: Should *this* woman have gotten this apartment at that price? And right now, I'd have to say no. (Whether she should have been permitted a rent-controlled apartment at a higher/different price is a separate question, to my mind.)
The increase in revenue is made through 'future' tenants.
Those three links will answer your questions better than I can and there's no heavy reading, just skim 'em.
As for as the woman sneaking in, would it have made a difference in your opinion if she had been the biological daughter? It didn't with the law.
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.
