amarante

Smart's father left the Mormon church with a polite explanation that it wasn't in accord with his current beliefs.

Perhaps it's semantics but my experience is that whatever the contract states, the actual practice is to move on. For example, it is typical to have a buyer put down a deposit when the contract is signed and theoretically the deposit is forfeited if the seller doesn't go through with the deal unless one of the specified contingencies is operative. However, in my personal experience if the seller backs out for any reason they get their deposit back because it isn't worth it to tie up a place and attempt to collect the deposit. My realtor friends tell me that they don't go after clients even if the client somehow weasels away because it's just not worth it to get involved in litigation against a client - unless it is something really blatant like accepting an offer from a buyer that an agent brought to the table. Often there are bidding wars and the purchase price is actually more than what is in the contract. People in business generally don't sue over gray areas especially in a word of mouth type of business like real estate. Of course in this specific instance, it's all moot since the apartment was never really being offered but was just a storyline that was worked out for Steve to show his mentoring the female agent. Based on experience in terms of location agreements, it's not that easy to actually get permission to shoot in a multi-family building since the HOA typically doesn't want to inconvenience other residences by giving permission for the shoot and you need permission from an HOA or Board to film in an apartment.

For sure there are many builders who don't build quality buildings but that is not unique to multi-family homes as there are lots of homeowners whose single family homes were poorly constructed. The field of forensic construction litigation keeps many lawyers and structural engineers busy with litigation. Caveat emptor in terms of defective construction for condo, coop and single family buyers in terms of adequate inspection. I was only commenting on what monthly maintenance fees cover in which someone stated that high maintenance fees were a profit center for the developers. Maintenance fees cover operating costs for the building and there is no profit to the HOA. I am more familiar with California law in terms of HOA but there are very stringent requirements in terms of having an annual budget and it being distributed to every homeowner 30 days prior to the start of the fiscal year. Maintenance costs cover operating costs plus whatever reserve the HOA decides but it's typically no more than 10% of a budget. As I wrote, most HOA's do not have huge reserves because they rely on Special Assessments for large projects. In terms of "amenities", it really depends on what those amenities are in terms of cost. It doesn't cost much to have a room with a gym, a playroom for kids; some kind of room with a Wifi connection or even a pool. It does cost to have doormen and valet parking for example because of labor costs. The cost for maintaining the building itself in terms of super, cleaning crew etc. would be the same whether you have a doorman or not. A lot of the "amenities" don't really add to the actual operational costs of a building since they aren't labor intensive.

My friend lives on the ground floor of a building and has a large patio. There is a constant stream of cigarette butts (some lit) as well as some more "interesting" stuff like used condoms.

Having read all the erudite and insightful posts, all I can add is that I can't stand Candiace's mannerisms - the way she twists her head as if she is imparting the most bon mots of all bon mots - CANNOT STAND. And how in the world did her mother amass all the wealth. She is a psychiatrist but a even a very successful psychiatrist just makes a living and generally doesn't have the kind of "fantastic" wealth that Candiace implies the woman has. Candiace and the mother are truly a Folie à deux to the max. The sister seems to be completely free of the toxic relationship that Candiace has with her mother. Also I am completely confused about what accomplishments Candiace has - and I mean this in a literal and not snarky way. She is a 32 year old woman who prior to becoming a Z list celebrity on this show was a hostess in an obscure restaurant whose fiancé is not particularly attractive, successful, charming or any other particular "thing" that someone of her "accomplishments" would seem to "deserve". I mean it goes without saying that Ashley married for the money. As they say marry for money and you earn every penny :-). Michael's motivation for marrying Ashley are more complicated - prior to all this groping stuff, I assumed that it was a fairly typical transaction relationship - my money for you being my arm candy. Now it seems grayer - is she is beard? Is he someone so on the down low that having arm candy like Ashley actually makes HIM able to ignore his homosexual propensities? I mean there is a long history of self deception among gay men - Elizabeth Smart's father just came out of his Mormon closet after 64 or so years.

Most of the newer buildings that are viewed on this show are condos rather than coops. I don’t think many high end luxury coops are even being built now. There are reasons for this since the structure of a coop makes it more difficult to sell and typically the kind of people buying very expensive condos would not be approved by a coop board. They also lose the ability to be private since many of the ultra luxury condos are owned by corporations so ownership can’t be determined. A coop has a different ownership structure than a condo as a coop owner buys shares in the corporation owning the building and has a lease for their unit. That is why a coop Board can exercise such control over who can buy and what one can do with one’s apartment. With a condo, one owns a fee simple interest in the unit like any person owning a single family home and therefore there are no restrictions on transfers or need for Board approval to buy or sell. However, like any HOA there will be governing documents with rules like construction or whatever. A condo generally enables the owner to rent it out to whoever he wants for however long he wants. Typically you can’t rent your coop apartment. As posted, almost all new developments in NYC are now condos especially in the very high end market. You will never see any of the expensive coops on this show because they wouldn’t permit filming for starters. It would be critical to examine the financials of a condo or coop before buying but in general new developments might actually have lower maintenance because the developer is anxious to sell the units. Maintenance costs vary for a lot of reasons. Some coops actually have mortgages and so a certain percentage of maintenance is tax deductible. Some buildings have some form of tax incentive or other government break which might help with operating costs. In general Boards don’t want to have artificially high maintenance costs because they are elected by the owners of the units and they also are paying maintenance. At least in my experience most buildings have lower reserves and so any large capital expenses are funded by Special Assessments. It’s the nature of people to prefer to pay less in the hope they will not be owning when the elevator is replaced or the heating system breaks down completely.

There is no profit to a developer on maintenance. A condo or coop has an annual budget based on actual costs to run the building and the budget is payable by all homeowners in accordance with a formula in the governing documents. Most typically it is based on square footage but there are other formulas. I live in a condo with amenities and the costs to operate especially in a high cost of living area like New York City are enormous which is why monthly maintenance charges are so high. Labor costs for the maintenance staff as well as doormen and other workers is extremely high and there is generally a large number of staff necessary to keep buildings running and to staff amenities 24/7. This isn’t a landlord situation where the owner of a building makes a profit based on the difference between operating costs and rental income.

I am not understanding your math. If a house is $30,000 more then a down payment is only a percentage of that excess. There are always ways to structure escrow if closing costs are an issue Also my original post is based on what they say is their maximum amount so theoretically they have the money for a slightly more expensive home or else they are lying. I can’t imagine moving into some of the ones they picked if I could afford a slightly more expensive home. I also don’t understand how not spending what you have qualified for means you then have that money to make expensive improvements since a mortgage is based on purchase price unless someone is paying all cash and therefore actually has what isn’t spent in the bank. I very much doubt any of these people are paying cash except possibly for older people who might have sold a home with enormous equity or buying in a foreign country where one wouldn’t be able to obtain a mortgage

Because they aren’t looking for a black dress. They are looking for an angle so they can be picked for the show. There have been a few episodes where a bride was looking for a black dress and not a single one said yes to a black dress. The closest it cake was a woman who had her dress trimmed with black and it actually looked quite elegant. Invariably the all decide they want to look traditional and say yes to a white dress. There have been occasional brides who want a colorful dress. I think one got colorful tulle petticoats suggested by Vera and they were pretty and there was a bride who got a really lovely floral dress several years ago. I liked the dress the woman wound up with and I do think it was regal as it was more what the European royals seem to be marrying in with long sleeves and not particularly a lot of cleavage.

It’s not relevant in the ultra luxury market because the extra cost is insignificant in terms of their wealth and budgets. It’s only relevant if you are working on a middle class budget and so a few thousand dollars or extra time is a relevant factor. Just divide a number by a hundred or a thousand and then realize how little it matters to a wealthy person. Not that all wealthy people are spendthrifts but it isn’t a factor to the same extent as a middle class person.

In a high end apartment, it doesn't matter because they will be ripped out and redone to keep up with trends. It is only when trendy stuff trickles down to the middle class does it become relevant in terms of becoming "dated" because generally middle class owners don't have the financial ability to rip out relatively new kitchens and bathrooms because they don't like the style. In the more expensive neighborhoods in Los Angeles, it is standard operating procedure for a new owner to gut a kitchen when they move in even if it was completely redone five or so years before.

I think the Temecula lady was somewhat or a lot of a poseur. Although she said she was willing to spend up to a certain amount, none of the houses were even close to her purported maximum. I am sure if she were really willing to spend that amount of money, she could have found a home that was better. I really didn't like any of those homes particularly in terms of either functionality or aesthetics. I know that the whole process is rigged and so there really aren't the choices available although theoretically choices would represent a sample of what is available at whatever price point/location house hunters are seeking. However, often I think all of the homes are pretty dreadful and wonder why they didn't look further especially when they are not close to what their stated maximum budget is. While I don't believe in making oneself house poor, often the functionality of the homes is so terrible that I wonder why they didn't up their budget $30,000 or so and get a more functional design. I'm not talking about "outdated cabinets" but stuff like not having a bathroom or even a powder room on each level. I find many of the cheap Cape Cod homes to be pretty dismal as the upstairs bedrooms have almost no normal height ceilings.

An interesting article in today's New York Times which illustrates how precipitous the decline is in the high end luxury market and the glut of condos on the market or coming in the market in the near future. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/13/realestate/new-development-new-york.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage&section=Real Estate One in Four of New York’s New Luxury Apartments Is Unsold A quarter of the new condos built since 2013 in New York City have not yet found buyers, according to a new analysis of closed sales. Among the more than 16,200 condo units across 682 new buildings completed in New York City since 2013, one in four remain unsold, or roughly 4,100 apartments — most of them in luxury buildings, according to a new analysis by the listing website StreetEasy. “I think we’re being really conservative,” said Grant Long, the website’s senior economist, noting that the study looked specifically at ground-up new construction that has begun to close contracts. Sales in buildings converted to condos, a relatively small segment, were not counted, because they are harder to reliably track. And there are thousands more units in under-construction buildings that have not begun closings but suffer from the same market dynamics.

Without seeing floor plans and finishes for the two apartments as well as actual square footage, it's hard to say which is "worth" more. There is a real premium in terms of being on a high floor. I personally would not have much interest in the terrace so it wouldn't particularly add value to me. It was kind of creepy in that it was open to view by every other apartment in the building. I prefer a higher floor and preferably one with a view of some kind - I currently live in a high rise with an unobstructed view and my favorite apartment in Manhattan had an unobstructed view north to the city including the Empire State building.

We all hear things differently. I watched this episode after reading posts on the thread so I was listening with certain expectations which weren't met. From my perspective what she wanted was to immerse herself in the complete Madrid experience which meant being in the center of the action rather than being somewhere in the suburbs. I didn't hear her babbling on about the outer regions being inauthentic - only that she and her husband would find it more difficult to access the kinds of experiences that are typically found in city centers. In terms of charm, again I think that there is a rational difference between living in a brownstone or the equivalent and living in a building that could be anywhere in the world. It's a pretty typical want for many people however and wherever they are looking. People in New Mexico often want what looks like the classic New Mexican homes - people in San Francisco would love to live in a painted lady. If I were going to live in a place for a short period of time I would also choose to live in a vibrant urban area so that I could interact as easily as possible with as wide a variety of people as I could. A suburban lifestyle or even a lifestyle in the outer boroughs is not comparable because it is so much more effort to get out and experience things. When else do you not have to deal with constraints of children which is why typically people move to the suburbs because they compromise based on the needs of children for space or whatever.

I am almost certain that the "Trust" is an Inter Vivos Trust that is quite common for even middle class people to use in order to avoid going through the expense and administrative hassle of probate. On death whoever is named as the beneficiary of the Trust is immediately the owner of the assets. Typically a husband and wife are Trustees while both are living. When one dies, the surviving spouse then becomes the sole "owner" of the assets of the Trust. Often a child or children are named as co=Trustees at this point but the beneficiary (e.g. the surviving spouse) still has control of all the assets and can change the beneficiaries of the assets at any time. The other Trustee(s) can only use the assets of the trust for the benefit of the beneficiary. For example, if the beneficiary becomes unable to take care of financial stuff, they can write checks and even sell stocks and other assets but ONLY for the benefit of the beneficiary because to use the money to write a check for themselves would be embezzling. In this specific instance Simmons probably made Mama Dee the sole beneficiary of the Trust. D'Andrea may or may not be a Trustee but she has no more "right" or "power" of the assets than any child has with regard to their parents' assets. Mama Dee can choose to make her favorite charity or dog a beneficiary. That's why D'Andrea has to continue to suck up to her mother because if she doesn't stay on her good side, Mama Dee can change the will just as any parent can change the will. This is NOT the kind of Trust that people think of when someone says they have a "Trust". In that type of trust, a specific sum is set aside for a person and it goes to the beneficiary at a certain age - e.g. 21. This is typically done when parents don't think children are old enough to handle an inheritance. The oldest I've ever heard is 35 and that is typically when some of the Trust has been distributed at earlier ages. D'Andrea does not have this kind of Trust - of that I am almost certain. When D'Andrea talks about borrowing against the Trust, she is really just talking about borrowing from her mother. It's really moot unless there are other children in the picture. For example, if there are three children and one child wants money to buy a house and the parents give the child the money, it is typical to reduce that amount from the inheritance so all children receive the same amount on death. Or at least that is good estate planning to not cause rifts when parents die. I have no idea what kind of money Mama Dee has but most middle class people have Inter VIvos Trusts - and if they don't they should because otherwise they will waste time and money in probate. You can't even sell a home until you settle probate whereas with an Intervivos Trust, the heirs have immediate access to the assets and can deal with them without delay. ETA - The difference is that an Inter Vivos Trust is revocable during the life of the "owner" of the Trust. It is a type of legal ownership that is used to avoid having assets tied up in probate after death. But it really is just a form of a will and like a will can be changed in terms of beneficiaries until the owner of the assets dies. The type of Trust that D'Andrea wants people to think she has is an IRREVOCABLE Trust which means that once the Trust is established and the beneficiary is named it can't be revoked. This type of Trust is set up either to avoid taxes or because you don't want beneficiaries to squander assets if they inherit them too young. It is possible that Simmons set up a Irrevocable Trust in which Mama Dee has a lifetime interest in all assets but the assets she doesn't spend are left to designated beneficiaries. During Mama Dee's lifetime she could spend or give away all of the assets but she can't change the beneficiary. There are tax advantages to this type of Trust - or there were at some point but the ceiling for inheritance taxes on estates is so large that you really need a large estate for it to matter.

I just viewed the Madrid episode and the woman was absolutely correct in terms of wanting to live in a vibrant area where it was easy to have a social life. I don’t find it strange that one would want to live in an urban neighborhood where one is surrounded with a vibrant street life. There is a huge difference between the type of experience one will have and the realtor acknowledged that the way to experience Madrid was to live where it is easy to meet up with people. I don’t see it as different than wanting to live in any urban area in any city. My experience living in the Village is sure as hell different than if I lived in Ozone Park. I could just walk out my door and be assured of having an interesting experience. After all, there is a reason people go TO these places when they have free time. The term is geographically undesirable because there is no street life and it is way more difficult to have to shlep somewhere than walk out the door. As a rule people who live in those areas don’t visit residential suburban areas for fun And many US hunters want charm as part of their requirements. I wanted a place with charm and it was very specific when I looked for a place to rent in Los Angeles.

It was obvious to me that the analogy Emily was making was how terrible it was to have your children exposed to emotional trauma. In my world having your mother taken away in an ambulance would be terribly frightening to a child. And the reality is that when the police arrest someone with children present they are actually very conscious of not trying to create a traumatic situation for the children. They ask if there is someone who is available to take care of the children and they don't typically haul a compliant person away from the children in handcuffs in front of the children. They will ask the person to step out of sight of the children after making sure that the children have someone to take care of them. In an medical emergency, EMT are just trying to save the life of the person and that trumps not traumatizing the children although obviously they are not trying to scare kids.

It doesn't matter what other obligations he has. Emily stated that he had enough wealth so he didn't have to work. Emily is certainly not bringing in enough money to support their lifestyle. She doesn't work enough hours and she wouldn't have enough prestige to charge a lot for each billable hour. Attorneys don't actually make a lot of money unless they are partners in big firms where they have associates that they make a profit on or they are high level in house counsel. In any of these positions, you are working too many hours to be able to participate in a reality television show. I am claiming that neither is the "breadwinner" but that whoever made the money in his family is heavily subsidizing their lifestyle in some way.

Emily is NOT the breadwinner. There is wealth on Shane's side of the family as she stated last season that Shane didn't have to work. There is no way that Emily's work as an attorney supports the kind of lavish lifestyle that she has. I would suspect that financial issues are the major glue in her staying in the marriage since the family's wealth wouldn't be a factor in terms of support or division of assets. I suspect that it is also a factor in terms of her relationship with the mother in law.

double post

Braunwyn managed to create herself as a normal human being more or less. Everyone has got foibles but given the demon mother who still is a narcissistic bitch, she seems to have cobbled together a more or less emotionally successful life. She is in a long term marriage to a man who seems to be genuinely successful enough to support an affluent lifestyle and has children who have not yet deviated into spawn from hell territory. This could change of course as housewives often implode but at the moment it seems amazing that she isn't more emotionally scarred. Aside from the obvious of what person without some kind of extreme personality disordered dresses to attract so much attention, the woman is completely incapable of actually listening and acknowledging her daughter. From what I have observed in terms of their interactions as adults, one can only imagine what she was like as a child and the kind of physical and emotional neglect she suffered. That the woman could not listen to her one request in terms of not having the child interact with the aunt is chilling - as I heard it the aunt actually tells terrible things about Braunwynne to the children. I don't see Braunwynne as living in the emotional past. The essence of getting through and growing emotionally is to look at one's relationships with one's parents and see how that has actually impacted how one relates to the world as an adult. Whether that occurs when one is 20 or 40 or even 70 doesn't mean that it is not necessary in order to actually put the past behind. What now needs to occur is for Braunwynne to realize that her mother is NEVER going to be able to grow in terms of their relationship and so Braunwynne needs to just accept the very limited emotional relationship the woman is capable of and move on from there.

It is pretty much standard operating procedure for dogs to be fed at the table by kids who are passing off their food and soft hearted adults. I know that in this day and age of enlightened pet parenting, it is not "politically correct" but it is done. Most people would not think of feeding some pizza to a dog as wasting valuable resources - if people thought that way they wouldn't have dogs and wouldn't support a multibillion dollar pet industry. My dog used to recognize the Chinese food take out containers and get very excited at the prospect of some great eats :-).

I come down on the side of mugging for the camera and being preternaturally wound up because of the whole "excitement" of the experience. I would love to be a fly on the wall to observe the behavior of all those impeccably behaved children because the kids I know have all kinds of moments when their behavior could be perceived as whiny, selfish, bratty, fighting with their siblings, being rude and just being in general normal kids. That behavior is generally mixed in with stellar behavior. And as posted, take a normal kid and drop him into a situation where the family is being filmed and then footage is edited so that any moments are highlighted and you then have what you see on the edited footage - a pretty normal kid in an abnormal situation who is being edited for snark and plot line.

I don't think they are specifically talking about a drop in their finances - although that obviously is going to happen when the market is decline. However, the complete glut and consequent down turn of the luxury apartments which these guys specialized in (at least for the show) is a major aspect of the NYC real estate market. I don't know how you can portray this without it being a major factor in terms of there having to deal with sellers having unrealistic goals based on sales from two years ago and trying to figure out a strategy so that their ultra luxury unit or development is differentiated from the others glutting the market. So far none of them has been bitching about a decline in income nor have they been shown with cutbacks - they still have their drivers for example and personal assistants.