General Discussion

packman

(16,296 posts) Sat Feb 7, 2015, 03:27 PM Feb 2015

Florida at work - screwing condo owners

"Shirley Lofgren, 85, paid $217,500 for her Serenity condo – almost all of it in cash – when she moved to Florida in 2007 with her husband, Robert, who's since been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s and now lives nearby. She says Prestwick Partners is offering her an assessed value of $46,500. If she took the offer, it would wipe out the equity she spent a lifetime to build, and she doesn’t have enough cash to buy something else."

Article points out a law - passed in Florida - that says if the condo holding company has 80% ownership in a condo, it can force the tenants to vacate. When a condo businessman owner was asked on whether their actions were moral, Michael Cosculluela replied: "There's no question of morality in business "

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/america-tonight/articles/2015/2/6/florida-condo-law.html

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Florida at work - screwing condo owners (Original Post) packman Feb 2015 OP

It's the new America. Turbineguy Feb 2015 #1

THis is BS, benld74 Feb 2015 #2

Spirit is always trumped by letter. WinkyDink Feb 2015 #5

A condo is never one's private property, unless one owns the development. A dream is never to be WinkyDink Feb 2015 #3

Really and truly shocking. One more reason to stay away from Florida. marble falls Feb 2015 #4

I wasconfused by the article - at the end it said Our condo is not ready for neglect - hollysmom Feb 2015 #6

Turbineguy

(37,361 posts)

1. It's the new America.

Reply to packman (Original post)

Sat Feb 7, 2015, 03:36 PM

Feb 2015

A country made stronger and more cohesive by people fucking each other over.

benld74

(9,909 posts)

2. THis is BS,

Reply to packman (Original post)

Sat Feb 7, 2015, 03:46 PM

Feb 2015

article states "Florida's 2007 condominium termination law was designed to help developers salvage aging or storm-ravaged properties that would cost more to repair than they were worth" Insurance would have thus paid the homeowners the units worth.
THe portion stating 80% ownership in the building the unit is located, was most likely added to law after the fact. Current business owners are using the law to get rich. THe law was NEVER meant to allow this to happen.

WinkyDink

(51,311 posts)

5. Spirit is always trumped by letter.

Reply to benld74 (Reply #2)

Sat Feb 7, 2015, 03:48 PM

Feb 2015

WinkyDink

(51,311 posts)

3. A condo is never one's private property, unless one owns the development. A dream is never to be

Reply to packman (Original post)

Sat Feb 7, 2015, 03:47 PM

Feb 2015

confused with the fine print of a contract.

marble falls

(57,144 posts)

4. Really and truly shocking. One more reason to stay away from Florida.

Reply to packman (Original post)

Sat Feb 7, 2015, 03:47 PM

Feb 2015

hollysmom

(5,946 posts)

6. I wasconfused by the article - at the end it said Our condo is not ready for neglect -

Reply to packman (Original post)

Sat Feb 7, 2015, 05:01 PM

Feb 2015

it is 100% occupied - that must mean with renters, -if it was occupied by owners the company would not own 90% the number needed for a forced removal (unless people are too stupid to object if it were 80% owned by one company).

I know the Florida market was bad, but this seems extreme - I think they should look into the fair evaluation being made by someone involved and hence not fair. They need a good lawyer to specialize in this condo law for the tenant side to help them fight it for a fair evaluation - I find it hard to believe that a well maintained condo could have dropped to less than 25% - now half, yes,I have seen it here on overpriced condos that were going for 600K now going for 300k - still overpriced.. My own house has dropped almost 50% (according to the tax man, the regulators differ and say it dropped more like 15%).

Reply to this discussion