Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Protecting Against the Current Real Estate Market
For the past several months there has been a steady drumbeat in the press about the overheated real estate market. Is it a case of modern-day tulip mania or merely a reflection of the laws of supply and demand? Will prices continue to surge or is there a crash looming? Although macro economic factors doubtless are at play, nevertheless there has been little discussion of what action, if any, individual co-op and condo boards, buyers and owners can or should take, as a matter of law or policy, to protect their respective interests and preserve the stability of their buildings in this environment.
What Co-op Boards Can Do
It is well established that absent discrimination, co-op boards can accept or reject buyers at will, and have the lesser included power of imposing financial criteria for admission. Past market cycles teach that exercise of this power tends to be self-regulating and elastic, with rejections rising as does the market, because these boards know there will be someone else waiting in the wings. The current market, however, presents unique challenges. There are plenty of buyers, but with prices soaring, many are stretching to make purchases beyond their means, lured by the prospect of cheap money offered by banks in the form of interest only, adjustable rate, even pay-what-you-will loans (that may result in negative amortization). As rates rise, these exotic products, if used in sufficient numbers, may come back to haunt not only affected owners, but the financial well-being of the building.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.