Popular Topics
All Topics
- 5 Pointz
- Advertising
- Advertising Law
- affordable housing
- AirBNB Lawsuit
- ALTA
- ALTA ACSM Standards
- Assemblages
- Bloomberg BNA
- Breach
- Broker-LawyerRelationship
- Broker’s license
- Building Loan Soft Costs
- Certified B corporation
- checklist
- Climate Change
- Commercial Condo
- Commercial Tenant Harassment Law
- commerical real estate
- Condo Developers
- condominium
- condos
- Contract
- Copyright, Trademark and Other Intellectual Property
- Corporate Law
- Corporate social responsibility
- Court Decisions
- COVID-19
- Crowdfunding
- Crowdfunding Rules
- CSR
- Delaware corporate law
- Delaware Good Faith
- Delaware Law
- Dodd-Frank Act
- environment, social and governance
- ESG
- event of default
- FinCEN
- foreclosure
- Fraud
- gross negligence
- ground leases
- Inequitable Conduct
- infrastructure
- Insurance Company
- Intellectual Property
- Internal Revenue Code
- internet
- ISLA
- Jennifer Plan
- Job Act Rules
- Joint Venture Agreements
- leasehold condominiums
- Limited Liability
- Limited Partnerships
- LLC
- LLC Agreement
- LLC Agreement Questions
- LLC Checklist
- LLC Mergers
- LLC taxation
- Loan Agreements
- MAE
- Mom and Pop Tenants
- Mortgage Subordination
- mortgages
- New York
- New York Attorney General
- New York City Council
- New York City Surveys
- New York Real Estate Journal
- Non-profit Organization
- NY Attorney General
- NY Real Estate in 2016
- NY Real Estate in 2018
- NYREJ
- NYS Land Surveyors Association
- NYS Lien Law
- Offering Plan
- online database listing
- opportunity zones
- Ordinary Course Covenant
- Passive Investors
- Public benefit corporation
- Public M&A
- Public Policy
- Purchase Contracts
- quality control
- Real Estate
- Real Estate Development Company
- Real Estate Financing Bureau
- Real Estate Litigation
- Real Estate LLC Agreements
- Real Estate Taxes
- Real Property Tax (RPT)
- Real-estate-advertising
- retail lease
- Rights of First Refusal
- ROFRs
- rural areas
- Sales
- Sales Tax
- section 1031 exchanges
- Securities & Exchange Commission
- Sellers
- Sole Discretion
- Specific Disclaimers
- Tax
- tax escalation clause enforcement
- tenancies in common
- TRIA
- VARA
- Visual Artists Rights Act
- Visual Examinations
- “High Volatility” (HVCRE) loans
Recent Posts
- NYREJ Publishes a Review of 2020 by Thomas Kearns
- NYREJ Publishes Article by Thomas Kearns on the Top 2020 Legal Developments Affecting NY’s CRE Industry
- Delaware Chancery Court Provides Important Guidance on COVID-19’s Impact on a Buyer’s Obligation to Close:
- Infrastructure Needed to Cure Digital Divide in the U.S.
- NYREJ Publishes Article by Thomas Kearns on Foreclosures for Technical Mortgage Defaults
- NYREJ Publishes Article by Thomas Kearns on Hotel Ground Lease Defaults
- NYREJ Publishes Article by Thomas Kearns on Gross Negligence
- NYREJ Publishes Article by Thomas Kearns on Returning to Offices After COVID-19
- NYREJ Publishes Article by Thomas Kearns on Protecting Co-Investors in LLC Agreements
- Acronyms, Abbreviation and Jargon in New York Commercial Real Estate
Archives
- February 2021
- December 2020
- October 2020
- August 2020
- June 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- September 2019
Contact Us
Thomas D. Kearns
tkearns@olshanlaw.com
@TDKearns
212.451.2273
Condominium Offering Plans are Contracts
The New York Real Estate Journal published an article by Olshan Real Estate partner Thomas Kearns entitled, “Condominium Offering Plans Are Contracts.” Tom discusses the implications of the evolving case law after the 2002 Jennifer case which held that condominium offering plans can create contractual obligations between sponsors and individual purchasers.
Full article content reprinted with permission below. To view on the New York Real Estate Journal site, please click here.
The New York Court of Appeals in the 2002 Jennifer case held that a condominium offering plan is a contract with each purchaser and that the Jennifer plan included an implied agreement by sponsors to sell more than 50% of the condo units to the public. Later court decisions have extended the contract theory to promised amenities (Country Pointe v. Beechwood) and to construction defects (VetroCondominium v. 107/31 Development). Since Jennifer, the New York attorney general has permitted offering plans to include disclaimers of the implied agreement to sell a certain number of units but the overall contractual analysis remains good law. Despite this well known trend, many questions remain. For example, suppose a sponsor promises in the offering plan that a swimming pool will be constructed within three years but the new condo board prefers cash and a children’s playroom instead? Can the sponsor alter the plan with the board’s consent or must each unit owner also agree? Since offering plans typically don’t address the issue of changes at the request of the board, the answer is not clear.
What if the pool/playroom switch was made by an amendment of the plan after the sale of some units have closed and the attorney general either misses the issue or determines the change is not material. Are the original purchasers entitled to insist on the pool? Under the logic of Jennifer, the answer should be yes, it’s a contractual change and absent some disclaimer in the plan, the original buyers have an enforceable right to the pool but will courts permit a vote of disinterested unit owners to control?
What about changes to legal matters such as the declaration of condominium or the by-laws? Assuming the sponsor has voting control, may a sponsor amend the by-laws it included in the plan after units have closed? How about new sponsors who take over after the original sponsor is foreclosed upon and after initial sales have closed? Shouldn’t they be deemed successors for the purpose of the contractual liabilities? A 1991 attorney general policy memo about lender takeovers states that a foreclosing lender is not liable for misstatements made by prior sponsors but will be responsible for “compliance with legal requirements promised in the offering plan” by the prior sponsor. That statement and the Jennifer line of cases would suggest that neither the sponsor nor the lender could change the declaration or by-laws even if they had voting control.
The reason the Jennifer contractual issue is important is that it gives aggrieved condo purchasers legal recourse if the attorney general elects not to pursue an enforcement action – purchasers can’t sue their sponsor for failure to comply with the attorney general rules but purchasers can sue for a claim for breach of contract.
Regular readers know I like to give practical advice: Sponsors looking to settle claims or change building plans at the request of the board of managers of the condo should ask to be indemnified by the board from unhappy unit owners who may have contractual claims. Boards should proceed in a manner designed to engender as much political acceptance of the proposed deal with the sponsor as is possible. And sponsors should not attempt to unilaterally amend their contract, implied or otherwise, with the unit owners without an evaluation of the potential risks of claims from aggrieved owners.
Thomas Kearns is a partner at Olshan Frome Wolosky LLP, New York, N.Y.
* Genta Stafaj, a Real Estate Associate, researched and assisted with the drafting of this post.*