Y
young88
Guest
What is the name of your state? MA
Background info:
I'm in seattle moving to and buying a condo in MA -
The condo is a 3 story "row" house converted to 3 condo units.
Each unit has 1 Unit Owner vote and each unit has 1 member on the Board of Trustees
I'm worried about a clause in the condo docs that states:
Section 2. Financing of Purchase of Units by Trustees
With the prior approval of a majority in interest of the Unit Owners, the trustees may acquire Units of the Condominium. Acquisition of Units by the Trustees may be made from any funds in the hands of the Trustees; or if such funds are insufficient, the Trustees may levy an assessment against each Unit Owner in proportion to his beneficial interest, as a commmon charge; or the Trustees, in their discretion, may borrow money to finance the acquistion of such Units, provided, however; that no financing may be secured by an encumbrance or hypothocation of any property other than the Units with Appurtenant Interests so to be acquired by the Trustees.
I'm bothered by the majority -- Now this may sound ridiculous but I just want to be covered and the people who set up the condo are brother and sister:
It sounds to me that if the other two owners (A and B)were to vote to have the trustees buy one of their units (either unit A or unit B) - I would be on the hook for the funding even if I vote not to buy their unit.
I thought about conflict in interest but there's this clause:
No Trustee shall be disqualified by his office from contracting or dealing with the Trustees or with one or more Unit Owners ....
So worst case scenario in my mind is that the brother and sister who are the other trustees -- and technically unit owners currently of the other two units -- vote to purchase as trustees any of the other two units, I'm forced to come up with the financing? This seems a bit ridiculous.
My questions:
Are my interpretations correct?
Has anyone else seen this in Condo docs? (i.e. what purpose would having this clause serve?) -- like I said I'm from Seattle and haven't seen a clause such as this before -- maybe it's normal for MA?
Thank you!!
Background info:
I'm in seattle moving to and buying a condo in MA -
The condo is a 3 story "row" house converted to 3 condo units.
Each unit has 1 Unit Owner vote and each unit has 1 member on the Board of Trustees
I'm worried about a clause in the condo docs that states:
Section 2. Financing of Purchase of Units by Trustees
With the prior approval of a majority in interest of the Unit Owners, the trustees may acquire Units of the Condominium. Acquisition of Units by the Trustees may be made from any funds in the hands of the Trustees; or if such funds are insufficient, the Trustees may levy an assessment against each Unit Owner in proportion to his beneficial interest, as a commmon charge; or the Trustees, in their discretion, may borrow money to finance the acquistion of such Units, provided, however; that no financing may be secured by an encumbrance or hypothocation of any property other than the Units with Appurtenant Interests so to be acquired by the Trustees.
I'm bothered by the majority -- Now this may sound ridiculous but I just want to be covered and the people who set up the condo are brother and sister:
It sounds to me that if the other two owners (A and B)were to vote to have the trustees buy one of their units (either unit A or unit B) - I would be on the hook for the funding even if I vote not to buy their unit.
I thought about conflict in interest but there's this clause:
No Trustee shall be disqualified by his office from contracting or dealing with the Trustees or with one or more Unit Owners ....
So worst case scenario in my mind is that the brother and sister who are the other trustees -- and technically unit owners currently of the other two units -- vote to purchase as trustees any of the other two units, I'm forced to come up with the financing? This seems a bit ridiculous.
My questions:
Are my interpretations correct?
Has anyone else seen this in Condo docs? (i.e. what purpose would having this clause serve?) -- like I said I'm from Seattle and haven't seen a clause such as this before -- maybe it's normal for MA?
Thank you!!
