07-04-2015, 04:59 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-04-2015, 05:01 PM by panamaniac.)
(07-04-2015, 11:54 AM)sportsfreak Wrote: To various posters…
The upgrades were all paid for 18 months ago when they were chosen. Different contract. Plus anything you added on your own like blinds.
Equity: they cancel agreement of purchase and sale from 2010 and sell it at today's market value, give your money to creditors
There never were extra spots. Mady's blunder was being hidden by plans to build 155 and create more parking. 20 unsold units don't have parking. Others have 2 spots under contract for many years. Trustee threatening to break contracts to get parking spots to help sell unsold units to get creditors like Marshall Zehr their money back now, rather than force them to wait for 155 or sell units without parking. Building is close to LRT.
Any thoughts on business ethics in this matter?
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
That would likely be negative equity, for that building in the current market.
Re business ethics, do you mean Mady's or the trustee's? The trustee strikes me as desperate rather than unethical. Mady probably found that many prospective purchasers would proceed only if a second parking spot were part of the package, so more of a "seemed like a good idea at the time" rather than an ethical question.