bittoxic00 t1_j48x16d wrote
Reply to comment by LouisSeize in He Spent 181 Days at Rikers Over NYC Condo Addition — and May Go Back If It Isn't Torn Down by Shreddersaurusrex
The members should also be worried that a blocked sale of any buyer willing to buy and remedy will probably lead to a foreclosure at this rate. Thus a future huge disbursement from the building fund will lead to a new levy, that or a bank takes it, do they then throw some poor vp from boa in jail?
AceContinuum t1_j491l8n wrote
>The members should also be worried that a blocked sale
It's a condo, not a co-op. Condo boards don't typically have the right to block a sale, nor does the article suggest that the condo board is trying to block Riccardi from selling. Rather, as a practical matter, no buyer in their right mind would want to buy once they learn of the whole mess.
As for the possibility of a bank taking over ownership after foreclosure (the article doesn't mention whether Riccardi has a mortgage on the property - he might own it outright), the advantage of the corporate form is that it's not possible to jail a company. The most the judge would be able to do is fine the bank.
bittoxic00 t1_j499ho2 wrote
The article claims any sale is blocked while this is ongoing
AceContinuum t1_j49cgkk wrote
No, the article just says:
>The Riccardis say they would just like to get out but can’t sell the condo with the legal controversy pending.
"Can't sell with the legal controversy pending" is entirely consistent with "can't sell due to inability to find a buyer."
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments