Tag Archives: commercial real estate

Pawling Public Radio: Three Ways to Avoid Liability for Alcohol Served at Association-Sponsored Social Activities

Pawling Public Radio

This Side of the Law: Three Ways to Avoid Liability for Alcohol Served at Association-Sponsored Social Activities

Pawling Public Radio: BNR – Law Firm NYC | Hudson Valley

By Jay Nussbaum
Partner Berlandi Nussbaum & Reitzas LLP
January 17, 2013

Organizing social activities like pool parties, cookouts, and holiday parties is a big part of managing a community association. They bring members together and foster a sense of commu­nity. But association-sponsored social activities can be risky, too, if you serve alcohol.

If a member, employee, or guest drinks too much and gets into an accident, the victims—including the person who caused the accident—may sue the associa­tion and/or manager. And in many states, they’ll have a good chance of winning. The easiest way to avoid liability for alcohol- relat­ed accidents is to not serve alcohol at social events you sponsor. Many community associations are now doing this, making all social gatherings “dry”—that is, alcohol free.

But if you do decide to serve alcohol at association-sponsored social events, you can take steps to minimize your exposure to liability. Here are three things you can do:

Pawling Public Radio: Three Ways to Avoid Liability for Alcohol Served at Association-Sponsored Social Activities

  • Have the right kind of insurance coverage. Your general liability policy may already have a clause giving you “limited liquor liability” or “host liquor lia­bility” coverage. These clauses protect you against lia­bility for accidents caused by people who have consumed liquor you served. If you don’t have this coverage, and you plan to serve alcohol at association-sponsored social events, you should get it.PRACTICAL. POINTER: If you have only one activity a year at which you serve alcohol—say, at a holiday party—consider saving money by getting limited liquor liability coverage just for the single event, rather than having it added on to your policy for year-round coverage.
  • Don’t charge fee for admission or alcohol. Just having the right kind of insurance coverage isn’t good enough. If you charge money for the drinks you serve, the limited liquor liability clause won’t help you much. It won’t cover you for injuries for which the association might be held liable as a result of its:
    • Causing or contributing to the intoxication of any person;
    • Furnishing alcohol to an underage person;
    • Furnishing alcohol to an already intoxicated per­son; or
    • Violating any law in the provision of alcohol.

A limited liquor liability clause isn’t intended to cover those in the business of selling, serving, or provid­ing alcohol.  So if you want to serve alcohol at a social function, don’t charge for it. That way, you won’t be con­sidered to be in the business of selling, serving, or pro­viding alcohol, and your limited liquor liability clause should cover you in case there’s an accident.Don’t charge an entry fee, either. Some insurance companies might say that even though you’re not charging money for the alcohol itself, charging for entry into an event at which alcohol is served is the same as being in the business of selling, serving, or pro­viding alcohol. If that’s what they con­clude, they won’t cover you for any accidents that happen. So err on the side of caution and don’t charge an entry fee.

  • Hire professionals to serve the alcohol. An alternative is to “subcontract” the provision of alcohol to a professional, licensed organization that uses trained bartenders. Having a professional bartender can help protect you because bartenders are trained to spot minors and to know when to stop serv­ing guests who are intoxicated—tasks your employees won’t be able to do as well.The other big advantage of subcontracting out the provision of alcohol is that professional companies carry liquor liability insurance to shield them—and you—from liability. Insist that the company you hire name you on its insurance policy as an “additional insured” for the association-sponsored social event. Getting an outside firm to serve the liquor is the way to go, as long as it’s insured and the association is named on the policy as an additional insured. 

Pawling Public Radio: BNR – Law Firm NYC | Hudson Valley

Pawling Public Radio: Three Ways to Avoid Liability for Alcohol Served at Association-Sponsored Social Activities

http://pawling.wpengine.com/2013/01/17/this-side-of-the-law-three-ways-to-avoid-liability-for-alcohol-served-at-association-sponsored-social-activities/

 

Still Sitting on the Sidelines?

Commercial Real Estate, Mortgage Financing, Law

Jay Nussbaum

Berlandi Nussbaum & Reitzas LLP
July 13, 2012

Anecdotally at least, there seem to be a lot of commercial real estate investors, developers, etc., who finally like where prices are, like the way returns are penciling out, and are eager to move forward, but haven’t ripped off their warm-ups and gotten into the game because they don’t know where to access mortgage financing.

I’m thinking about this today because I just represented a very aggressive lender on a nice $5.5M loan secured by a 600-unit apartment building in the Southeast. The buyer was very savvy, and realized that conventional financing wasn’t going to be available for his deal because the property he was buying was only 60% leased at the time of acquisition. So instead of wasting his time and losing the deal—or worse, never going to contract at all out of fear of the mortgage market—he wisely found a bridge lender that jumped at the deal. Sure, that’s a more expensive way to go than conventional financing, but it enabled him to buy the property, and after he turns it around (he estimates 12 to 24 months) he’ll refinance out into a conventional loan.

Sure beats sitting around grumbling about the lack of available financing.

Mortgage Lender Error

Commercial Real Estate, Mortgage Financing, Law

Jay Nussbaum

Berlandi Nussbaum & Reitzas LLP

Mortgage Lender Error

When boxing promoter Don King used to crow, “Only in America,” it was a hopeful, if self-serving, proclamation that anything is possible in America for those dedicated to improving their stations in life. Unfortunately, in today’s America, in the wake of the historic mortgage industry implosion of 2008 that served to tear the mask off the banking industry only to reveal a well-capitalized Barney Fife running things, that same statement serves as a grim warning that can, and probably someday will, bumble its way into your financial world too.

Case in point: Our firm recently handled a foreclosure defense that was entirely bank-driven. The ludicrous story began when our client’s lender initiated a letter to our client stating that the client ‘might be eligible for a mortgage modification’ on his condominium apartment in Manhattan. Our had no need for a mortgage modification, but as any logical businessman would do under the circumstances, he figured there was nothing to lose by taking the bank up on its offer and submitting an application. Remember those words: “nothing to lose”.

Immediately after his application was submitted, he was told by the bank that, because he now had a modification application pending, the bank would no longer accept loan payments on his mortgage. For our client, this didn’t require any action of any kind, because when he first closed on his loan he set up an automatic payment whereby he authorized the bank to simply withdraw funds from his account every month. So the client took no action at all, but the bank—which still had the authority to withdraw monthly payments from the account—elected not to. This would have been fine, if not for the fact that the bank then foreclosed on our client based on those very same “missed” payments. And here’s where it gets really weird.

Two days after the bank foreclosed on our client, it sent him a letter denying his mortgage modification application, and then, a little less than a month later, sent him another letter saying that the bank had not yet made a decision on his mortgage modification application. Only in post-2008 America.

At this point, because of all the conflicting information, the poor man had no idea what was going on or what to do. Was he being foreclosed on by his bank? Was he still being considered for a mortgage modification?

Naturally, he tried calling the bank to find out what was going on. He tried the foreclosure department; he tried the legal department; he tried the mortgage modification department; he even tried the misnomer of all misnomers, the customer service department. No one knew what was going on. No one knew what the department down the hall from them was up to. No one had the authority to make a decision or even to get a decision-maker for him to talk to.

Meanwhile, letters kept coming. Another letter arrived denying his mortgage modification application (again)…followed by FIVE letters, each saying that the application remained under review…followed by two more letters saying the application had been denied…followed by another EIGHT letters saying that it remained under review. (Incidentally, not a single letter was signed by any individual, whom we would’ve been able to call to discuss the matter, nor, we were told, was anyone at the bank able to receive incoming emails. In short, it was not only a tragically dysfunctional system, it seems intentionally designed to be that way.)

My firm fought the foreclosure for nearly two years. For nearly two years, the case crawled phlegmatically through an overburdened court system. My client spent money; the bank spent money. Still, no one ever stepped forward from the bank with any knowledge, authority or interest in discussing the case, explaining what had happened or how to fix things. (Because throughout the case, our client remained financially capable of fixing whatever was wrong, if only someone at the bank would tell us what had caused all of this.)

Finally, we reached the point where a hearing was scheduled to determine whether the bank had even served my client the right way to begin the lawsuit. As a courtesy, we asked the bank’s attorneys to meet with us to talk about the case, and fortunately, by that time, they had hired a law firm that was willing to communicate, unlike the foreclosure mill that had been handling the case up to that point.

We met with them, and demonstrated, point by point, how irresponsibly their client had behaved for the past two years. At the end of the meeting, we offered to let them save face by dropping the case before walking into the hearing on jurisdiction, where they would surely lose.

They accepted our offer, and dropped the case.

So let’s look at the scorecard. The bank sued for foreclosure in October, 2010, for reasons that we have still never learned. Two years have passed. Both sides have paid lawyers. The bank has alienated an affluent, excellent borrower and client. And that bank is, today, in exactly the same place, legally, as they had been in two years earlier, except that they have not received loan payments for almost two years. Today, as I write this, the bank has still refused to engage in any type of substantive conversation with us.

Why? Because the bank is too big, automated and disorganized to make a phone call. Only in America.

Similar stories:

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/robo-signers-blamed-foreclosure-mistakes/story?id=11798650

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/foreclosure-crisis-twisted-world-mortgage-lender-error_n_1236634.html

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2010-10-05-foreclosure-errors_N.htm

Real Estate