How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask socrateaser Your Own Question
socrateaser, Lawyer
Category: Real Estate Law
Satisfied Customers: 38910
Experience:  Attorney and Real Estate broker -- Retired (mostly)
Type Your Real Estate Law Question Here...
socrateaser is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

We retained ownership of a Coop apartment although it is not

Customer Question

We retained ownership of a Coop apartment although it is not our primary residence.
We received a memo from the Coop board saying that we are not occupying the apartment and are in violation of Article 5 of the Occupancy Agreement. Therefore, the garage lease for our parking spot is terminated by them.
Article 5 reads "The Member shall occupy the dwelling unit covered by this Agreement as a private dwelling for himself and his immediate family and for no other purpose and may enjoy the use, in common with the other members of the Corporation, of all community property and facilities of the project, so long as he continues to own stock of the Corporation, occupies his dwelling unit, and abides by the terms of this Agreement."
"The letter reads that since our family is no longer in residence, invoking Article 5 has become necessary" order to take away the parking spot.
My view is that the Coop has unjustifiably invoked Article 5. Although the apartment is not our primary residence, we still have possession of the apartment, own stock and returns on a regular basis to use and enjoy the apartment.
Submitted: 1 year ago.
Category: Real Estate Law
Expert:  socrateaser replied 1 year ago.
Hello, A neutral reading of the quoted article is that the unit may only be used as a residence for the member/owner. The article does not use the terms "primary" or "principal" residence. Consequently, I agree with your interpretation. If I were representing the coop, I would argue that the phrase, "shall occupy the dwelling a private dwelling," means that anything less than actual occupancy is a violation of the article. Again, as a neutral decision maker (judge, arbitrator, etc.), I find the coop's likely construction extremely tenuous/strained. But, unless you're prepared to actually litigate the issue, the coop, which rules by fiat, without objection, wins. That's really the bot***** *****ne. I think you have a viable case, but you're going to have to start a war, in order to prevail. I hope I've answered your question. Please let me know if you require further clarification. And, please provide a positive feedback rating for my answer -- otherwise, the website retains your entire payment, and I receive nothing for my efforts in your behalf.Thanks again for using Justanswer!
Expert:  socrateaser replied 1 year ago.
Hello again,I see that you have reviewed my answer, but that you have not provided a rating. Do you need any further clarification concerning my answer, or is everything satisfactory?If you need further clarification, concerning this matter, please feel free to ask. If not, I would greatly appreciate a positive feedback rating for my answer -- otherwise, I receive nothing for my efforts in your behalf.Thanks again for using Justanswer!