Moderator: TenantNet
by Achow8 » Mon Jan 18, 2016 11:30 pm
by TenantNet » Tue Jan 19, 2016 12:05 am
by Achow8 » Tue Jan 19, 2016 12:25 am
by BubbaJoe123 » Tue Jan 19, 2016 11:52 am
by Achow8 » Tue Jan 19, 2016 12:24 pm
by BubbaJoe123 » Tue Jan 19, 2016 2:31 pm
Achow8 wrote:My roommate had asked the broker to draft that agreement (believe she pays him a fee for securing tenants) so the agreement initially had a statement in it stating that I would pay the broker fee but my roommate and I both agreed to strike that out and we both initialed on the change. I have a copy of that agreement that I plan to bring to court. What else would you suggest I bring?
by Achow8 » Tue Jan 19, 2016 3:36 pm
by Cranky Tenant » Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:02 pm
Achow8 wrote:In addition, the building is a no fee building and I was advised by property management that it is inappropriate for this broker to charge a fee. Subsequent to agreeing with my roommate to move in, the broker then notified that I owed him one month's broker fee. I also later found out (and perhaps not so relevant with respect to the broker) that the living arrangement was illegal as my name was not only not on the lease but my roommate never registered me as a co-tenant.
by TenantNet » Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:45 pm
by Achow8 » Tue Jan 19, 2016 7:20 pm
by TenantNet » Tue Jan 19, 2016 8:00 pm
by TenantNet » Tue Jan 19, 2016 8:07 pm
This seems to be a fairly straight forward brokerage commission liability case that the agent/broker should lose.
The material points are:
1. The person being sued is not the person who contracted for the broker’s services. No legal relationship exists between agent/broker and the tenant’s roommate, beyond the fact that the agent matched the roommate with the tenant.
2. There is no signed broker’s commission between the defendant and the agent or broker. A brokerage commission agreement must be in writing in New York State.
3. Neither the agent nor broker gave the required broker representation disclosure forms to the defendant. Defendant never acknowledge receiving such a disclosure form in writing.
4. The defendants was not a signer of the lease. She/He was knowingly brought into this situation by the agent as a roommate and not as a tenant to be included, by name, in the lease.
5. The defendant’s relationship to the apartment is solely as a roommate of the official tenant, the signer of the lease. Not a co-tenant whose name is on the lease.
6. A written roommate agreement exists between the tenant and the defendant. Unless there is language in this roommate agreement making the defendant liable for any part of the brokerage commission, then no such liability exists.
7. As a general rule, landlords are entitled to know when an apartment is being shared with a person whose name is not on the lease.
In rent stabilized apartments, tenants have a right to have a roommate or significant other move into their apartment, although they also have the obligation to disclose this information to the landlord. The landlord may not prohibit the other person from living in the apartment (except in very narrow and specific cases), but the landlord is nonetheless entitled to ask the roommate to fill out some paperwork letting the landlord know who the proposed roommate is and how they can be contacted.
In non-rent stabilized apartments, the landlord has the right to prohibit any person whose name is not on the lease from living in the apartment. In almost all non-rent stabilized leases (known as a 'prime lease’), the lease mandates that landlord’s approval must be obtained in order for a roommate to move in with a tenant. The apartment owner has the right to reject a roommate.
From the defendant’s description of the events in this case, it is clear that neither the tenant of the apartment nor the agent sought to gain landlord’s approval for the roommate. Such failure to obtain landlord’s approval is almost certainly a violation of the lease's provisions regarding roommates or shares. It was the obligation of the tenant to secure such approval from the landlord or, if approval was not necessary, to inform the landlord of the existence of the roommate.
It seems reasonably clear that as a matter of law, the defendant will not be held liable for the payment of a brokerage commission to the real estate agent/broker.
However, the defendant never mentioned whether he signed any papers with the agent regarding a fee for having found him the roommate with an existing apartment tenancy.
If the defendant signed a roommate finding agreement with the agent, and that agreement calls for the paying of a fee by the defendant, then the defendant will most likely be liable for the amount of the roommate finding fee.
Defendant states that an agreement to find a roommate exists, and calls for the paying of a fee by the existing tenant. From the defendant’s description in an earlier post above, she/he believes that such an agreement exists and that the tenant has already paid the fee called for in the agreement. I hope the defendant has a copy of that agreement, which would show that the obligation is not hers/his to pay the agent.
by Achow8 » Tue Jan 19, 2016 9:40 pm
by TenantNet » Tue Jan 19, 2016 10:21 pm
by BubbaJoe123 » Wed Jan 20, 2016 6:29 am
Achow8 wrote:Someone had mentioned earlier that regardless of that provision being present or not, the agreement is between me and my roommate so the broker who is not a party to the agreement should not be entitled to a fee on that basis. Is that correct?
Return to NYC General Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 guests
Subscribe to our Mailing List! | |||||||