N
Nicolas
Guest
What is the name of your state?Florida.
Hello there,
The by-laws of my Condominium state that parking places can be transfered between owners. Said transfer must respect 3 conditions: a) the transfer must involve like-parkings; b) owners must end up with the same number of parkings that they had before the transfer; c) the transfer mus be made by recordable instrument, and be approved by the Board.
Eight months ago I transfered a parking to another owner, and in exchange I received his parking place. The transfer was between a non-covered parking and a covered one. Said transfer was notarized and signed by all applicable parties. However, we failed to request the approval of the Board. Things were left like that for many months due to a long trip abroad after a familiy member died. Just recently, I sold my condo unit, and during the process, repeatedly disclosed to all potential buyers the fact that the condo unit was being sold together with a non covered parking. When the sale contract was signed, the addendum clearly specified the number of the parking, and the fact that it was uncovered. Furthermore, I requested that the buyers signed their initials right above the parking number and the "non-covered" word. The sale went through and the closing was completed. A week after, the buyer became aware that the unit he bought, had originally been assigned a covered parking, but said parking had been transfered by me to another owner in exchange for his parking. He also became aware that the transfer had not been yet approved by the Board. On such grounds, he claims now that he was deceived and wants the old covered parking assigned to his unit.
Since the sale of my property is just one week old, is there anything that could prevent me from requesting the Board's approval for the parking transfer notarized months ago? Has the Board legal grounds to deny the approval? Like I said before, the transfer was notarized, and therefore the instrument is recordable. Moreover, the transfer was between " like " parkings, since one was uncovered and the other covered. Like is synonimous with similar, reminescent of, approximately the same. Which means that according to the by-laws, the parkings do not need to be identical, just "like". If the intention of the by-laws was to allow the transfer of identical parkings, they would clearly state so. Instead, the word "like" is used. Am I right about the legal definition of "like"? I am now requesting the approval of the transfer I made. However, the buyer of my unit would like to see the transfer of the parking voided of any value, and reverted (so that he can have the covered parking that was originally assigned to the unit), despite the fact that when he signed the purchase contract and an the addendum, he inizialized the line where it was clearly noted the "condition" of the parking. Your thoughts about the whole matter will be appreciated.
Thank you in advance.
Hello there,
The by-laws of my Condominium state that parking places can be transfered between owners. Said transfer must respect 3 conditions: a) the transfer must involve like-parkings; b) owners must end up with the same number of parkings that they had before the transfer; c) the transfer mus be made by recordable instrument, and be approved by the Board.
Eight months ago I transfered a parking to another owner, and in exchange I received his parking place. The transfer was between a non-covered parking and a covered one. Said transfer was notarized and signed by all applicable parties. However, we failed to request the approval of the Board. Things were left like that for many months due to a long trip abroad after a familiy member died. Just recently, I sold my condo unit, and during the process, repeatedly disclosed to all potential buyers the fact that the condo unit was being sold together with a non covered parking. When the sale contract was signed, the addendum clearly specified the number of the parking, and the fact that it was uncovered. Furthermore, I requested that the buyers signed their initials right above the parking number and the "non-covered" word. The sale went through and the closing was completed. A week after, the buyer became aware that the unit he bought, had originally been assigned a covered parking, but said parking had been transfered by me to another owner in exchange for his parking. He also became aware that the transfer had not been yet approved by the Board. On such grounds, he claims now that he was deceived and wants the old covered parking assigned to his unit.
Since the sale of my property is just one week old, is there anything that could prevent me from requesting the Board's approval for the parking transfer notarized months ago? Has the Board legal grounds to deny the approval? Like I said before, the transfer was notarized, and therefore the instrument is recordable. Moreover, the transfer was between " like " parkings, since one was uncovered and the other covered. Like is synonimous with similar, reminescent of, approximately the same. Which means that according to the by-laws, the parkings do not need to be identical, just "like". If the intention of the by-laws was to allow the transfer of identical parkings, they would clearly state so. Instead, the word "like" is used. Am I right about the legal definition of "like"? I am now requesting the approval of the transfer I made. However, the buyer of my unit would like to see the transfer of the parking voided of any value, and reverted (so that he can have the covered parking that was originally assigned to the unit), despite the fact that when he signed the purchase contract and an the addendum, he inizialized the line where it was clearly noted the "condition" of the parking. Your thoughts about the whole matter will be appreciated.
Thank you in advance.