Posted by Ronin on August 02, 2001 at 01:41:50:
In Reply to: Re: I don't think it's a stupid question. posted by Stacy on July 26, 2001 at 21:51:27:
The buy-out may not be criminal per se, but it may be that the attorney is concerned about violating an ethical duty (which is pretty admirable of him- sort of) to not subvert the spirit of the rent laws. I don't know what angle he may be worried about though, or which specific provision might apply.
But it has a sleazy feel to it, and the attorney may just be uncomfortable with any bartering aspects involved in it.
I am happy to hear of an LL attorney attempting to appear to abide by the ethics codes... the Shysters in L&T are usually so brazen.
: Thanks. I've been looking around on a nunber of sites and couldn't find any information about buy-outs. Until this week, the LL and his attorney certainly didn't act like they're legal. The attorney first said they would only offer to cover the cost of moving. Now each time the LL wants to offer me more, the attorney suddenly has to run to the bathroom.
: : I don't think it's a stupid question. Rent regulation is an incredibly complicated area, so it's absolutely normal for someone facing these issues for the first time to be bewildered. Or even people who've been struggling with it for a long time. A lot of the older documents on tenant.net and elsewhere say that tenants' rights to protection of the rent laws cannot be waived, so that suggests giving a rent controlled or stabilized apartment for money is illegal. Buyouts certainly run contrary to the purpose of the rent laws, and they have a sleazy feel to them. If it weren't a legitimate question, people wouldn't be asking it over and over again!
: : : the question, of course!
Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup