sponsor won't sell vacant apt

[March2004]

I recently tried to buy a sponsor unit in a coop. After two weeks of the realtor not returning my phone calls and being rude, I learned that the sponsor "decided not to sell" the apartment. Do I have any recourse? I am convinced that the whole thing was a sham from the beginning, and that they never intended to sell (for one thing, the realtor was incredibly unprofessional, not taking my calls, not returning calls -- as if he didn't really want to sell the apartment). My offer was about 20K over the asking price of the apartment, so it's not as if they didn't get a good offer.

So I am wondering: is there anywhere that I can report the incredibly unprofessional behavior of this realtor, whom I believe was colluding with the sponsor in a fake sale?
And in general, do buyers have any recourse in this situation, against the seller? not that I would want to live in this building anymore, since I think the sponsor is still the managing agent and probably doing a bad job at it.

[Downtown]

You would have to be able to show that you were denied the place because of discrimination (race, sexual orientation) and that the apt is still on the market.
Otherwise, an owner can change their minds before a contract is signed without penalty. A broker can always be stupid and lose a sale without penalty.
Sounds like a good decision not to move in.

[HardKnocks]

What do you think the motivation could be for pretending to sell the unit?

[March2004]

My understanding is that sponsors are legally obligated to sell their units wihtin a reasonable time after the conversion. By pretending to sell, they got written offers (they demanded a written offer from us) they could show the coop board to prove they really meant to sell.

This occured in your neighborhood, bleary-eyed, where apparently this sort of thing is not uncommon.

[HardKnocks]

I wasn't doubting you. I was just curious. It's true, I have heard similar stories here, where just about everything is co-op. I wouldn't touch a co-op with someone else's, if you catch my drift. What a collection of nightmares you're setting yourself up for!!

Yeah, as if renting is a trip to Disneyland, right?

[Pandyon]

Landlord's "obligation" to sell apartments is something that's still being worked out in court.

I can tell you, however, that I just received an offering plan where the sponsor states, up front, that he has no intention of selling units. That vacant units will be offered as rentals, and not for sale.

Ridiculous, yes, and I don't see why anyone would by into a plan like that, as you'd never be able to sell your apartment. Banks usually require +50% owner-occupancy on mortgages.

[Iddabiddy35]

Mark - not unless the sponsor bought these apartments as part of an LLC.

[Anna]

Originally posted by Iddabiddy35:
Mark - not unless the sponsor bought these apartments as part of an LLC.

Idda: why revied this topic now?

And, no, it does not matter who or what the sponsor is (natural person or LLC or Inc or Co or whatever) for 'Landlord's "obligation" to sell apartments is something that's still being worked out in court.' to apply.

[jackarmstrong]

So is this something that's a common practice, a landlord taking a building co-op and then not selling so as to get out of rent regulation? I ask because I just rented a place in a building in Brooklyn where the LL/sponsor still owns at least half the building and I've been hearing from others who rent from him that he's pretty irresponsible about fixing things, etc. I know we're paying an unregulated rent--it's maybe just short of the average for an apt of this size in our area, and well over $2k.

Is there anything I should know about the situation, compared to any other unregulated apt.?