News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.1K     0 

When I used to work as a building engineer, I did a lot of reserve fund studies for condominium corporations. Condo fees tend to be artificially low during the early years of a condo, and will continue to rise as a building becomes less and less financially viable. In one building I was involved with, a 1970's condo building was cheaper to knock down and rebuild then to continue maintaining.

In general, the taller the tower, the more expensive to maintain, for a variety of reasons, including use of cranes and that water is driven into the structure at ever increasing pressures (the pressure curve for wind is not linear as height increases, but exponential).

I've crunched a lot of numbers, and I never find the condo fees to be a reasonable compromise. Knowing that they will only get worst has always kept me out of condos.

I think it really depends on the condo board and how well they are able to save money for a reserve fund. I know someone living in a 1970's building, which is 34 floors and has lower maintenance fees than many other buildings because their board did not spend money foolishly on contractors for every small repair in the building but rather hired a super that had the skills to do this and paid him slightly more. They've been able to keep their fees pretty stable if not flat for the last 5 years because of good investments with money in reserve ($2M+ invested in solid paying GIC's give good returns). Thus, I think it is all a matter of management and what percent of the building are owners vs tenants. The more owners the lower the condo fees and the better a building is maintained.

As others stated, you have less control in a condo, but you can find out about how good the management is and the financials from the status certificated before buying and you are also able to find out % of owners vs tenants. It all should impact ones decision to buy into a building.

Something that people haven't mentioned as a cost of home ownership vs condo is the cost of a 2nd car. Most people don't own homes next to subway lines or good public transit. Living on a cul-de-sac requires a family to own a second car to get around, or sometimes even a third once kids get older. Thus, adding those costs into the mix will make home ownership even more expensive due to the increased transportation costs. Most condos or high-rise buildings in general are build near TTC bus/tram routes or subway lines, reducing the need for more than 1 car, which can cost around $5-8K per year.


After reading several threads on this subject, I'll be looking at a house then. Thanks for the above info & this website (http://www.condoinformation.ca/problems) to enlighten me about the pros & cons of condo fees vs home ownership.
 
Last edited:
note as a home owner you should be building up your own "reserve fund" in the term of savings for home repairs. I honestly don't know how disciplined people are in doing that. I don't own a home (I own a condo), in my informal survey of friends and families who do own homes, they aren't that good at it and major home expenses ususally go on a credit line to be (hopefully) paid off. I seem to recall some financial planner saying to budget 3% of your annual income towards home expenses - i'm not sure if this is the correct number but the point was a good one - you should ideally be saving to fund home repairs when required so you can avoid going into debt.
 
This article, from this link, shows what happens (at least in Pennsylvania, U.S.) where condos were sold without the consent of individual owners.

'This Is Crazy': Company Snatches Condos From Owners

Teresa Fusco thought she had done everything that she needed to do to sail comfortably into her golden years. She owned a condominium unit in Reading, Pa., with an appraised valued of $101,000, and she had a rainy-day fund in case her health failed.

So she was shocked when earlier this year she suddenly found herself with no home and a wrecked credit score after a company that bought most of the condo complex sold her unit for less than half of what she thought it was worth. To make matters worse, Fusco is still on the hook for the $71,000 mortgage on the property that she no longer owns.

"As a single woman, 56 years old, who works hard and was looking to retire in that place, I had everything set up," Fusco said.

Her plans -- and those of 10 other homeowners who say they've had their properties stolen from them -- started to unravel when Deer Path Woods, the condo complex where they lived, went into foreclosure last fall. Fusco's unit was one of 11 that were individually owned; another 97 were rental units. When the owner of the rental units failed to pay his mortgage, a company under the control of local developer Kevin Timochenko snapped all of them up for $7,200 at a foreclosure auction.

The purchase gave Timochenko's company, Water Polo I, LP, control of nearly 90 percent of the units of the complex, arming it with enough votes to dictate condominium association policy. Soon after the purchase, Fusco and her fellow homeowners received a letter informing them that, come January, condo association fees would more than double, to $450 a month. The increase, according to a representative of Water Polo I, was to pay for upgrades to the complex that the tenants had demanded.

"We were all freaking out because we couldn't afford that in addition to the mortgages that we were paying," said former unit owner Adrienne Dawkins (pictured with her children below), who took out a $102,500 mortgage to buy her unit at Deer Path in 2007, and has since been forced to leave her home along with her three children. "We agreed to pay $200 when we bought our homes."

Anxiety over raised assessment fees paled in comparison to what happened next: The new condo owner called a vote to terminate the condo association altogether.

From Condos to Rentals

Dissolving a condominium organization isn't unusual. Termination reduces management costs, and in a depressed market makes it easier for homeowners to sell their units. It's often easier to find a buyer for an entire condominium, and a bank doesn't have to approve the sale. After termination, units of the dissolved condominium sell in bulk and are then typically converted into an apartment complex owned by a single developer.

"By buying the 89 percent of the units at the foreclosure sale last year, [Timochenko] acquired all of the units and all of the votes he needed to approve a termination," explains Tom Beaver, an attorney whom some of the unit owners turned to for help.

Here's the rub: Under Section 3220 of the Pennsylvania Uniform Condominium Act, when a condominium is dissolved, the condo association can put the entire condominium up for sale, regardless of who owns the individual units. So in acquiring control of the condo association, Water Polo I also gained the right to sell Fusco's home.

In April 2012, Deer Path Woods was put up for auction. Beaver, who attended the auction, said it sold for $3.425 million.

The buyer? Another company controlled by Kevin Timochenko. Along with the 97 rental units, the sale included the 11 owner-occupied apartments. The new buyer, Hoya I, LP, then converted the condominium into an all-rental apartment complex, now known as Spring Valley.

"The effect of terminating the condominium was to divest all of the unit owners of their real estate interest," Beaver said, adding that rentals are especially profitable for developers in today's market of high rental rates and diminished home values.

A Tale of Two Appraisals

It might not have been so bad if Fusco and the other owners got paid what they believed their homes were worth. Pennsylvania law states that in the event of a condominium sale, unit owners have the right to the fair market value of their homes as determined by an appraiser selected by the condominium association. That means that even though Fusco's unit had been valued at $101,000 by an independent appraiser earlier this year, she would get only the amount determined by the appraiser hired by the condominium association -- in this case, Water Polo I.

And the difference was shocking. After the sale, the 11 unit owners received letters saying that they or their lenders would each receive between $31,000 and $34,219 for the sale of their units. The owners were still responsible for the remaining balances on their mortgages, though. For Fusco, who took out a $94,025 loan in 2008 to buy her apartment, that means she's on the hook for about $40,000 even after her lender receives money from the sale.

Dawkins is in even more trouble: She owes $98,000 on her mortgage, making her liable for $60,000 even if her lender gets the maximum for the sale of her unit.

"[Water Polo I] really screwed her on this by not offering full market value with a legal industry appraisal and credible comparable condos," said Fusco's appraiser, Michael Robinson. "It was sad because she has a liability for the balance of her mortgage now."

So how is it that two appraisals on the same unit at around the same time could differ so dramatically?

A representative for Water Polo I suggests that the higher appraisals came when the units were treated as part of the now-dissolved condominium association, rather than simply as units of an apartment complex.

That doesn't hold water with George Schwambach, a roofer who owned his unit outright. Schwambach said that an independent appraiser valued his unit at $90,000 earlier this year.

"I'm losing sleep over this. This is crazy," Schwambach (pictured at left) said of the figure determined by the condominium association's appraiser. "My attorney is telling me we can't do nothing. It raises my blood pressure every time I think about it." Schwambach added that he had been renting his unit to a tenant, but the tenant, who was familiar with Timochenko, promptly vacated when he learned of the developer's connection to management.

That may not be surprising, considering a run-in that Timochenko's had with the law. As president of Metropolitan Management Group, which manages more than 10 apartment complexes in Berks County, Pa. including Deer Path's successor, Spring Valley, Timochenko was sentenced to 15 months in prison and fined $75,000 in 2006 for stealing gas from a utility company that served his apartments. The landlord's crime at one point put several tenants at risk of eviction by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, even though they hadn't participated in the scheme.

No Legal Recourse?

Still reeling from the loss of their units, the former owners have so far been told that they have little, if any, legal recourse. Everything that the companies controlled by Timochenko have done is perfectly legal, Beaver said, and the only way the unit owners could possibly get more for their homes would be to go to court to contest the appraiser's determination.

But that would cost them thousands of dollars, Beaver said, and since he has found no evidence of malfeasance, it might not result in relief for the former homeowners anyway.

"I checked into the situation and I came back and said, really, there was nothing I could do," Beaver said.

Pennsylvania State Sen. Judith L. Schwank, after receiving a desperate letter from Fusco, said her hands are tied as well.

"Frankly, I am astounded by the situation, and I will look into what must be done to change the law to prevent such an outrage in the future," Schwank, who represents the 11th District, wrote to Fusco. "Unfortunately, as you acknowledge in your letter, a future change to the law probably would not affect your rights."

Squatting in Their Own Homes

After receiving a letter in April of this year telling her to vacate or sign a lease agreement with Metropolitan Management Group, which manages the apartment complex for Hoya I, Fusco left her home. She now rents in Minersville, Pa.

Dawkins held out for more than a month after receiving the same letter, but left in late May once another letter arrived, this one informing her that Metropolitan Management Group was suing her.

But not everyone is going quietly.

David Wendell (pictured right), who said that he owes $61,500 in principal on the Deer Path unit that he purchased in 2008, refuses to vacate his property unless his lender receives a much larger amount for the sale of his home.

"I did not have a 'for sale' sign on my door," he said. "I want to pay off my mortgage, so I can have money to put down on a new home. I had everything planned. I'm going berserk."

In March, he called his lender, Nationstar Mortgage. A representative there informed him that he remained responsible for his mortgage.

"She was very shocked. She was like, 'These type of things don't happen,' " he said of her reaction to his situation.

Indeed, what happened to Deer Path is foreign to some other industry observers as well. The Fair Housing Council for the Harrisburg region said that it has never heard of a case like Deer Path's.

A lawyer for Metropolitan Management Group, Nicole Plank, said several lenders have agreed to forgive the debt on some of the other units acquired by Timochenko's company. She said that those who remain saddled with their mortgages should seek legal counsel in order to persuade their lenders to forgive their outstanding debt.

She adds that Timochenko isn't responsible for all of the heartache that has transpired at Deer Path over the last year. "Everybody has a misconception that this is an individual," she said. "These are businesses and entities that are acting in concert with the law."
 
Last edited:
It can happen, I suppose,

if a company can get control of 90% of all the units. That is not too likely unless the condo bubble bursts.
 
I have no idea what condo law is here and would be most interested to hear it.

You also have to be a crook at heart. This is a classic case of the law being used to rob people.

I fail to understand the valuations at all here. I believe in Canada at least if a vendor or mortgagor takes control of a property, he has a duty to get "fair market value" and can be held responsible if he does not. I would think the same would hold if a person / company got control of all units. It is incomprehensible that the units lost all this value. Rather it is a play of companies owned by one individual who are all conspiring to get the prices down. However, once the condo is in foreclosure the value is considerably less for sure.

This is one of the most disgusting things I have read. I understand conversion and even that the condo corp could be dissolved, but this is a rich crook taking advantage of poor simple people, no matter how you cut it, legal or not.
 
if a company can get control of 90% of all the units. That is not too likely unless the condo bubble bursts.


If this happens, it will happen to those buying at $600-$700/sq.ft. today or in the past year I would think because clearly value is not there at present(current resale is $500-550) and it would almost take a building of investors to end up in mass foreclosure here. But this is disconcerting.

I do know that in some cases prior to condos going into foreclosure in Florida, they fall behind on their payments taxes and condo fees, the bank still has a mortgage exceeding the value, some owners stay and others sign over their condos to the association while still on the hook. The association has sued them for non payment. They get to rent out the unit to cover the fees until the bank forecloses. The laws in Florida are such I believe that mortgagors, banks usually have only to pay condo fees of 1% of the value of the mortgage. This is far less than fees there. I appreciate this is not the same example but just indicates what else can go wrong.

All in all very frightening.

I think a company gaining control may actually occur in Canada if one is in a building where the developer has sold 75% to foreign interests. They may well walk away as can't be pursued easily in Canada and if prices were to drop below the down payments the developer was holding at registration there would be disasters, especially if the developer went bankrupt.
 
I think a company gaining control may actually occur in Canada if one is in a building where the developer has sold 75% to foreign interests. They may well walk away as can't be pursued easily in Canada and if prices were to drop below the down payments the developer was holding at registration there would be disasters, especially if the developer went bankrupt.

I think the developer would go bankrupt if they ran out of money to build. If it's not completed, owners get back their deposit. If it's gone to the registration phase, chances are the building is pretty much finished. The owners would be on the hook to close. Even at a large portion investors, depending on the country, they can locate the owner. Like the ones from US and UK who bought from Trump.
 
I think the developer would go bankrupt if they ran out of money to build. If it's not completed, owners get back their deposit. If it's gone to the registration phase, chances are the building is pretty much finished. The owners would be on the hook to close. Even at a large portion investors, depending on the country, they can locate the owner. Like the ones from US and UK who bought from Trump.

AKS,
I was more thinking of Asian and other European investors.
I am not sure that an American living in the US is going to worry about a judgement against him in Canada.
I also have read about some projects (not sure if this is correct) where blocks of units were sold abroad to be resold with lower than 20% down payments.

Even if the building is finished, if it is 20% unsold, and 20% don't close, I believe most developers make every project a seperate entity. If the developer was badly in the red and could not get reasonable money for the other units he has to sell, I am not sure even if registered what happens. Presumably the developer would be responsible for paying 40% of the costs (for the unsold and non closed units) and the rest of the units 60%. If the developer does not pay, what happens to the other 60%. I mean, they can sue the corporation which developed the project but they are likely in a seperate entity as I said with no assets other than the unsold units which may not be worth the money paid and it becomes questionable as to whether the other owner/ investors have enough money or are willing to pay to buy the rest of the project or pay the other 40% common expenses.
after all, the hydro and gas for the common areas will no longer be split by 100% but by 60% and hence condo fees would be much higher than expected. And who would buy in such a troubled building unless at a deep discount?
 
I believe home ownership can be cheaper if you do a lot of the work yourself. Some people enjoy doing work on their house, others don't. It's a lifestyle choice as much as a financial one.

Condo owners never have to haul smelly garbage bags to the curb, shovel their driveways, clear ice of their cars, pull weeds, make home repairs, worry about security, buy gym equipment or a gym membership etc. All of these things take up valuable time or money.

Individual utility costs for condo are also very cheap for a condo. My electricity bill is laughable. I don't pay for water.

Remember also, the actual heating and cooling is included in the maintenance fee in all newer condos by way of central cooling towers and boilers. You only pay for running the blower(s) in your individual unit which don't use much power.

I prefer a house over a condo. But if you are going to compare them, you need to consider a lot of factors - some of which aren't financial.
 
I believe home ownership can be cheaper if you do a lot of the work yourself. Some people enjoy doing work on their house, others don't. It's a lifestyle choice as much as a financial one.

Condo owners never have to haul smelly garbage bags to the curb, shovel their driveways, clear ice of their cars, pull weeds, make home repairs, worry about security, buy gym equipment or a gym membership etc. All of these things take up valuable time or money.

Individual utility costs for condo are also very cheap for a condo. My electricity bill is laughable. I don't pay for water.

Remember also, the actual heating and cooling is included in the maintenance fee in all newer condos by way of central cooling towers and boilers. You only pay for running the blower(s) in your individual unit which don't use much power.

I prefer a house over a condo. But if you are going to compare them, you need to consider a lot of factors - some of which aren't financial.

Not sure what you are responding to but I guarantee you condo dwellers are paying for water in their condo fees or somewhere. If not, I want to move to that building.
 
Condo owners never have to haul smelly garbage bags to the curb, shovel their driveways, clear ice of their cars, pull weeds, make home repairs, worry about security, buy gym equipment or a gym membership etc.

Depends on the building, not all have these.

Remember also, the actual heating and cooling is included in the maintenance fee in all newer condos by way of central cooling towers and boilers.

Actually, a lot of newer condos are sticking leased chillers on balconies. You pay for the maintenance of the leased unit.
 
Actually, a lot of newer condos are sticking leased chillers on balconies. You pay for the maintenance of the leased unit.



I have never heard of this. Please show me an example.

Every condo I have ever seen utilizes a central chiller and boiler (unless it is older and uses electric baseboard heating). This system is the most efficient approach and uses the least amount of energy overall. For air conditioning, a chiller unit on the roof generates cold water which is circulated through the building to individual fan coil units in each suite. The cold water is converted to cold air which is then forced out through ducts. Likewise, for heating, the central boiler sends hot water through the building which your fan coil converts to hot air which is then blown through your suite.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top