With offices in New York and Connecticut, we are ready to handle your legal needs. We have been representing condo, coop and HOA boards, businesses and individual clients for over twenty five years.
The key lesson from this new Second Department Appellate Court decision is that condominium boards, supported by their property management, must maintain detailed and objective records demonstrating a good faith effort to investigate, enforce, and balance the interests of all unit owners according to the governing documents. Boards can’t just say that it’s a unit owner-unit owner dispute and leave the owners to deal with their differences. A condominium board investigation and intervention, if deemed appropriate, should be undertaken.
The dispute in the case centers on a condominium unit owner’s complaints that a neighboring unit’s use was violating the building’s bylaws and house rules, specifically alleging a purported breach and resulting in unreasonable traffic and commotion in the common area hallway.
Key Board Obligations Under Scrutiny
The Appellate Division found that the plaintiffs raised issues of fact as to whether the defendant-Board of Managers breached its fiduciary duty by “permitting a purported breach of the bylaws and house rules to persist” over the plaintiffs’ repeated complaints.
The court noted that the parties provided “sharply contrasting evidence” concerning the extent of the Board’s investigation into the complaints and whether it fulfilled its fiduciary obligation to enforce the condominium bylaws.
Even though “persons living in organized communities must suffer some damage, annoyance and inconvenience from each other”, this principle does not eliminate a board’s duty to investigate alleged violations and “balance the unit owners’ rights fairly without favoring one over the other”.
An issue of fact was raised as to whether the Board properly determined that the neighbor’s conduct did not create a nuisanceunder the bylaws and house rules.
Dismissed Claims and Allegations
The Appellate Court upheld the dismissal of the following allegations and claims:
Retaliation/Disparate Treatment: The court agreed that the Board’s enforcement of a neutral rule—such as demanding the removal of the plaintiffs’ Ring camera—does not, on its own, establish disparate treatment or support a breach of fiduciary duty claim based on allegations of being singled out or retaliated against.
Private Nuisance: The court properly dismissed the claim for private nuisance against the Board because the Board “was not responsible for the creation of the purported nuisance”.
Takeaways for Boards and Management
This case provides critical guidance on a Board’s responsibilities when faced with unit owner complaints about a neighbor’s conduct:
Due Diligence in Investigation: When a unit owner alleges a violation of bylaws or house rules, the Board has a fiduciary duty to thoroughly investigate the complaint. Simply making a determination without a provable, complete, and fair investigation may be challenged in court.
Fair and Balanced Enforcement: The Board’s duty includes balancing the rights of all unit owners and acting fairly, “without favoring one over the other”. If the Board determines a neighbor’s conduct is not a violation, the record of the investigation should clearly support that decision.
Board Liability for Nuisance is Limited: A board is generally not liable for a private nuisance unless it was responsible for creating the nuisance itself.
A recent decision from the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department, in Board of Managers of Mountainside Hills Condominium II v. Pantaleone, provides important guidance and reassurance for condominium boards in New York seeking to enforce settlement agreements against delinquent unit owners. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s denial of the defendants’ motion to vacate a clerk’s judgment, ultimately upholding the condo board’s successful enforcement of a settlement stipulation for unpaid common charges. This case highlights the importance of strict adherence to contract terms and clarifies the application of the New York CPLR regarding service by mail.
Key Facts of the Case
The case began with the Board of Managers suing the unit owners (the defendants) to recover unpaid common charges and related fees.
The Stipulation: The parties entered into a so-ordered stipulation of settlement that required the unit owners to make installment payments to satisfy the agreed-upon amount.
The Default Provision: The stipulation specifically provided that if the owners failed to make any payment, the Board had the right to seek the entry of a judgment.
The Cure Requirement: Crucially, before seeking judgment, the stipulation required the Board to first serve the owners with a notice to cure. This notice had to be sent via:
Email to the owners’ attorney.
First-class mail directly to the owners.
The Board could seek judgment only after seven days elapsed following delivery of the notice through both means of service.
The Failure to Pay: The unit owners failed to make an installment payment due on November 1, 2019.
The Board’s Action: On November 7, 2019, the Board sent the required notice to cure via email to the owners’attorney and via first-class mail to the owners.
The Judgment: After the owners failed to cure the default, the Board submitted a proposed judgment, and a clerk’s judgment of $78,111.02 was entered on November 20, 2019.
The Court’s Ruling and Key Takeaways
The unit owners later moved to vacate the judgment, claiming they did not receive the notice to cure. However, theAppellate Division rejected their argument, basing its decision on well-established legal principles regarding proof of mailing and contract enforcement.
1. The Rebuttable Presumption of Receipt by Mail
The Court reinforced the powerful legal presumption regarding service by mail under New York law:
Proof of Mailing: Under New York law, submitting a properly executed affidavit of service creates a rebuttable presumption that the item was received by the addressee.
CPLR 2103(b)(2) Extension: The Appellate Division specifically applied the five-day extension provided by CPLR 2103(b)(2). Because the Board’s affidavit of service established the notice was mailed on November 7, 2019, the owners were presumed to have received it on November 12, 2019 (five days after mailing).
Denial is Not Enough: The Court held that the owners’“mere denial of receipt was insufficient to rebut that presumption.”
2. Strict Adherence to the Contract
The Court treated the stipulation of settlement as a contract, enforceable according to its terms.
The stipulation required the Board to wait seven days after delivery before seeking judgment.
Since the presumed date of receipt was November 12, 2019, the Board was permitted to seek judgment seven days later, on November 19, 2019.
By submitting the proposed judgment on November 19, 2019, the Board complied with the terms of the stipulation, and the judgment was correctly entered.
Actionable Advice for Condo Boards
This case serves as a vital blueprint for New York condominium boards when negotiating and enforcing settlement agreements for common charge arrears.
1. Be Meticulous in Drafting Stipulations
Define “Service”: Ensure your stipulations clearly and unambiguously define the method and date of service for a notice to cure. Include multiple, verifiable methods such as both certified and first-class mail, or email to a specific address, as the Mountainside Hills Board did.
Specify the “Cure Period”: Clearly state the exact cure period (e.g., seven days) and, critically, when that period begins (e.g., “seven days after delivery” or “seven days after the presumed date of receipt”). If you can omit a cure period, it is better to do so.
2. Follow Service Requirements Exactly
Affidavits are Essential: Always obtain and retain a properly executed affidavit of service when mailing a notice to cure. This is the evidence needed to create the powerful legal presumption of receipt, as a simple denial by the owner will not defeat it.
Account for the 5-Day Extension: When calculating the deadline to seek judgment, remember that New York’s CPLR 2103(b)(2) adds five days to the mailing time for court-mandated periods. The Board in this case correctly calculated the date of presumed receipt.
3. Enforce Judgments Promptly
A stipulation of settlement is a contract, and when the unit owner breaches, the Board is entitled to enforce the agreed-upon remedy.
As long as the Board can prove it strictly followed all notice and timing requirements in the stipulation, a court is likely to enforce the judgment and uphold the collection efforts against the delinquent unit owner.
Condominium boards should work closely with experienced legal counsel to draft ironclad settlement agreements and meticulously document every step of the notice process to ensure they can swiftly and successfully enforce them in the event of a default. Here’s the Court’s decision.
Community association boards, whether governing condominiums or cooperatives, bear the responsibility of maintaining community harmony, enforcing governing documents, and safeguarding both the financial stability and reputation of their associations. This duty faces its greatest test when a single, highly disruptive unit owner threatens the community’s well-being. The recent New York case, Board of Managers of Two Waterline Square Condominium v. Botach, exemplifies the difficult choices facing condominium boards when dealing with allegedly egregious owner conduct—and illustrates how aggressive legal action, while sometimes necessary, can expose associations to significant public scrutiny and legal risk.
The Two Waterline Square Conflict: A Case Study in Condominium Management
The lawsuit filed by the Board of Managers of Two Waterline Square Condominium against Jacob Botach (aka Rabbi Shmuley Boteach) and Deborah Botach originated from a dispute over $1,420 in rental and cleaning fees, plus late charges, for the unauthorized use of a common room in May and September 2024.
The conflict escalated dramatically when Defendant Botach refused to pay the fees, claiming the Board’s enforcement constituted anti-Semitism because one unauthorized use was for a memorial service honoring a victim of the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack. According to the Board’s allegations, Botach subsequently launched a public campaign against the association, utilizing emails to unit owners and social media posts (reaching his over 900,000 followers) that contained what the Board characterizes as “hyperbolic, defamatory, and frankly offensive” content. The complaint details three primary legal claims:
Defamation: Botach allegedly likened the $710 fee to historical persecution, including the Holocaust and Nazi Germany forbidding Jewish funerals, and called the Board “corrupt” and “antisemitic”.
Harassment/Nuisance: The complaint details Botach’s alleged harassment of Board members and building staff, including shouting at staff in the lobby, accusing them of “illegal activity and corruption,” and threatening “we are coming after you big time”.
Breach of Contract: Failure to pay the common room fees and associated late fees, which constitutes a material breach of the Condominium Documents.
The Board seeks not only the unpaid fees but also a Permanent Injunction to stop Botach from continuing his disruptive behaviors and publishing allegations of religious animus, as well as Exemplary Damages for defamation.
The Critical Distinction: Condominiums vs. Cooperatives
Understanding the fundamental differences between condominium and cooperative governance structures is crucial for boards contemplating litigation. These structural distinctions significantly impact both available remedies and strategic considerations.
Feature
Cooperative (Co-op)
Condominium (Condo)
Ownership
Shareholder in a corporation; holds a proprietary lease.
Owner of the unit (real property); holds a deed.
Relationship
Landlord-Tenant
Owner-Association
Primary Remedy
Eviction. The proprietary lease allows the board, in extreme cases, to terminate the tenancy of a disruptive shareholder.
Injunction & Foreclosure. The board must rely on remedies of property owners, such as filing a lien for unpaid charges and pursuing foreclosure or seeking injunctive relief for nuisance.
This fundamental difference in ownership structure creates distinct challenges for condominium boards. Unlike cooperative boards, which can leverage the landlord-tenant relationship to pursue eviction as an ultimate remedy, condominium boards must rely on remedies available to property owners dealing with other property owners. This limitation typically requires pursuing more expensive, time-consuming, and publicly visible litigation—including foreclosure actions for unpaid assessments or, as demonstrated in the Botach case, claims for private nuisance, defamation, and injunctive relief.
The Double-Edged Sword: Legal Action and Liability Exposure
While a board must act to stop an owner whose conduct interferes with the quiet enjoyment of other residents, pursuing a high-profile case like Two Waterline Square v. Botach comes with serious risks:
1. Public Scrutiny and Damage to Property Values
High-profile litigation, particularly cases involving public figures and inflammatory allegations such as discrimination claims, can severely damage a community’s reputation and market appeal. Properties in communities perceived as contentious, financially unstable, or poorly managed typically experience decreased buyer interest and reduced market values.
Financial Impact: Litigation can result in high legal fees, which may require special assessments or increases in common charges, making units less attractive to buyers. A protracted legal battle creates financial uncertainty, which can make it difficult for buyers to obtain financing, further reducing the pool of potential purchasers and decreasing property values.
2. Risk of Counterclaims and Board Liability
An aggressive lawsuit often invites counterclaims from the defendant, which can expose the board and individual directors to liability, even if they acted in good faith. Directors and Officers (D&O) insurance is critical here, as it typically covers the legal defense costs associated with defending against harassment and defamation allegations.
In consideration of the defamation claims asserted by the Board against Defendant Botach, it was crucial for the board to have considered the potential for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) counterclaims by Botach against the Board. Given Botach’s public figure status and his substantial following, the Board’s defamation claims may be perceived as an attempt to stifle his exercise of free speech. This raises the risk of SLAPP counterclaims, which, if successful, could lead to the dismissal of the Board’s defamation claims and the imposition of significant legal fees and penalties against the Board. Therefore, the Board should have carefully evaluated the merits of its defamation claims before asserting them and considered the potential ramifications of SLAPP statutes, which are designed to protect individuals from legal actions intended to chill their First Amendment rights.
Conclusion
The Two Waterline Square case illustrates the challenging position condominium boards face when traditional enforcement mechanisms prove insufficient to address disruptive owner behavior. Unlike cooperative boards with eviction remedies, condominium boards must carefully weigh the costs and risks of public litigation against the imperative to protect community interests. Before pursuing aggressive legal action, boards should conduct thorough cost-benefit analyses that consider not only the immediate dispute but also potential reputational damage, financial exposure, and the precedent such action may set within the community. The board’s attorney should take the board through this evaluation in advance of such aggressive and expensive and consequential legal action.
Effective community governance requires boards to maintain consistent, transparent, and legally compliant enforcement practices while fully understanding their structural limitations. When confronting egregious owner conduct, boards must develop comprehensive strategies that address immediate concerns while minimizing long-term risks to the community. This includes ensuring adequate Directors and Officers insurance coverage, consulting with experienced counsel, and carefully documenting all enforcement decisions. While taking a principled stand may sometimes be necessary to fulfill fiduciary duties, the strategy must be carefully calibrated to protect—rather than inadvertently harm—the community the board serves.
New York City’s skyline is dotted with condominiums, each housing a unique community with its own set of rules and challenges. Disputes often arise between condo owners and the boards of managers tasked with overseeing the building’s operations. These disputes can range from breach of contract claims to allegations of fraud and misrepresentation. This blog post examines a series of recent court decisions addressing a variety of legal issues arising in the context of New York City condominiums.
Breach of Contract and Construction Defects:
Several cases involved claims related to construction defects and alleged breaches of contract. In these instances, the courts analyzed the offering plans, purchase agreements, and other governing documents to determine the sponsor’s obligations and the unit owners’ rights.
In Board of Managers of 45 East 22nd Street Condominium v. 45 East 22nd Street Property LLC, the court considered claims of breach of contract and fraud in connection with the sale of a unit. The court ultimately denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss, allowing the case to proceed to discovery.
In Board of Managers of the Aston Condominium v. Building 389 LLC, the Appellate Division, First Department, addressed a case involving alleged construction defects and insufficient water heater warranties. The court partially dismissed the breach of contract claim related to construction defects due to a notice requirement in the offering plan. However, the court allowed the breach of contract claim based on the water heater warranties and the fraudulent conveyance causes of action to proceed.
In Board of Managers of the Blackfriars Condominium v. AG Ebenezer LLC, the court addressed a variety of claims, including significant construction defects, failure to preserve tax-exempt status for the church, and failure to honor financial commitments. The court dismissed several claims but allowed others to proceed, highlighting the complexity of legal issues that can arise in condominium development and management.
Piercing the Corporate Veil:
In Board of Managers of 135 West 52nd Street Condominium v. 135 West 52nd Street Owner LLC, the court addressed the issue of piercing the corporate veil to hold the sponsor’s principals personally liable for alleged construction defects. The court found the allegations insufficient to pierce the corporate veil, emphasizing the need for detailed and specific claims to hold individuals liable for the actions of a corporate entity.
Common Charges and Liens:
In Board of Managers of 25 Prince Street Condominium v. NYC Prince Holdings LLC, the Appellate Division, First Department, dealt with a dispute over unpaid common charges and a lien on a commercial unit. The court granted summary judgment to the board of managers on its claims for foreclosure on the lien, breach of contract, and attorneys’ fees. The court also declared that the roof was a general common element for which the defendant was responsible.
These cases provide a glimpse into the diverse legal issues that can arise in condominium disputes. They underscore the importance of carefully drafted offering plans, purchase agreements, and other governing documents. The decisions also highlight the need for boards of managers and unit owners to be aware of their rights and obligations under New York law.
In the case of HCJV 115 & 135 Hoyt Avenue Owner LLC v. Project Veritas, the Supreme Court of New York examined the legal principles of contract formation, part performance, and the parol evidence rule. The case involved a lease agreement between the plaintiff (landlord) and the defendant (tenant). The plaintiff alleged that the defendant breached the lease by failing to pay rent on time, while the defendant claimed that the parties had orally agreed to terminate the lease. The court, however, found that the defendant failed to provide enough evidence to prove the existence of an oral agreement to terminate the lease. If you reach an agreement, a handshake is just not enough. A well drafted agreement is worth its weight in gold (Bitcoin).
The court’s decision in this case highlights the importance of written agreements, especially in the context of real estate transactions. While oral agreements can be enforceable in some cases, they are often difficult to prove, especially when the terms of the agreement are disputed by the parties. In this case, the court emphasized that the lease agreement required any modifications to be in writing and signed by both parties.
Lessons to be Learned
The case of HCJV 115 & 135 Hoyt Avenue Owner LLC v. Project Veritas offers several lessons for parties to a lease agreement:
Put it in Writing and Sign it: Ensure that all lease agreements, and any subsequent modifications, are in writing and signed by all parties involved. This helps to avoid any disputes about the terms of the agreement.
Be Careful What You Say and Do: Avoid making any oral promises or representations about the lease agreement that are not reflected in the written document. Such promises can be difficult to enforce and can lead to misunderstandings and disputes.
Detailed Records: Keep detailed records of all communications and transactions related to the lease agreement, including emails, letters, and payment records. This can help to establish the terms of the agreement and the parties’ understanding of those terms.
Be Aware of the Risks: Understand that relying on oral agreements or part performance to modify a written lease agreement can be risky. If a dispute arises, the court may not enforce the modification if it is not in writing and signed by both parties.
Seek Legal Advice: If there is any doubt about the terms of a lease agreement, or if the parties wish to modify the agreement, it is important to seek legal advice from a qualified attorney. An attorney can help to ensure that the agreement is properly documented and that the parties’ rights are protected.
The case of HCJV 115 & 135 Hoyt Avenue Owner LLC v. Project Veritas serves as a reminder of the importance of written agreements and the risks of relying on oral modifications or part performance. By following the lessons from this case, parties to a lease agreement can help to avoid costly and time-consuming disputes.
What a confusing government we have. The First Circuit Court of Appeals which lifted the nationwide stay on the Corporate Transparency Act, just undid what it just did a few days ago, putting the nationwide stay back into effect until the Court hears all the arguments. Oral argument is not scheduled till March 25, 2025. The government, including the Courts, should be better than this. They are causing a ton of confusion for businesses and the professionals who service them.
For now, filing with FinCEN to comply with the CTA is going to voluntary again until the Court changes its mind yet again. Stay tuned for more.
The First Circuit Court of Appeals today lifted the stay on compliance with the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), delivering a significant victory for the government. The court found that the government has a strong likelihood of success in defending the CTA’s constitutionality against pending challenges.
While the appeals process is ongoing and a final decision has not yet been reached, the court’s decision signals that the CTA’s compliance deadline remains in effect. FinCEN just advised that the January 1, 2025 deadline for most entities has been moved a few days more to January 13, 2025. Entities required to comply with the CTA should therefore ensure they meet this deadline. Failure to do so could result in severe penalties, and it is unclear whether the government will offer any leniency to non-compliant entities.
If your board hasn’t complied, visit www.ballotmanagement.com to comply right away before the $591 a day fines start after January 13, 2025.
District Judge Amos L. Mazzant of the Eastern District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction ordering that the entire Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) is enjoined nationwide and that the US government in enjoined from enforcing the BOI Reporting Rule (the final rule implementing the CTA and providing definitions and guidance for the statute) and the Jan. 1, 2025, compliance deadline. Judge Mazzant decided yesterday to reject the government’s motion to reverse himself. It’s difficult to cause a Judge to reverse himself, so the government moved the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to take emergency action and reverse Judge Mazzant.
The government’s motion to the Fifth Circuit is pending with a briefing schedule that could result in a decision around Christmas. The government asked the Court to render a decision by December 27th, but it’ll be up to the Court. The government asked for a complete reversal on the nationwide injunction by Judge Mazzant, or at least an order limiting the injunction to the parties involved in that case, or just the members of the organization involved in the case.
If the injunction is lifted by the Fifth Circuit, organizations will have to go back to complying with the CTA and its looming January 1, 2025 deadline. FinCEN has not indicated whether it will extend the deadline if the injunction is lifted.
We will keep you posted of developments. For now, although the nationwide preliminary injunction relieves the immediate obligation – i.e., right now – to file beneficial ownership reports with FinCEN, it would be prudent for non-exempt reporting entities that haven’t yet filed to continue to prepare for their report filing by continuing to gather all information and documents that the CTA requires. If it turns out that compliance is not required, then they don’t have to submit their report to FinCEN, but if they do and FinCEN does not give a reasonable time thereafter for compliance, then reporting companies don’t have to scramble at the last minute to comply before the hefty $591 a day fines kick in.
Here Judge Mazzant’s decision refusing to reverse himself and the government’s motion to the Fifth Circuit.
New York City recently passed Local Law 24, also known as the Fair Chance Housing Act, which prohibits housing discrimination based on criminal history. The law will go into effect on January 1, 2025.
The law applies to all housing providers, including co-ops, condos, and HOAs. It significantly impacts how these organizations conduct background checks and approve or deny applications.
Key Provisions of the Law
Limits on Criminal Background Checks: The law restricts when and how housing providers can conduct criminal background checks.
Individualized Assessment: Housing providers must conduct an individualized assessment of an applicant’s criminal history. This assessment considers the nature and severity of the offense, the time elapsed since the offense, and the applicant’s rehabilitation efforts.
Adverse Action: If a housing provider intends to take adverse action based on an applicant’s criminal history, it must provide the applicant with a written explanation of the reasons for the adverse action.
Impact on Co-ops, Condos, HOAs and their Managing Agents
Co-ops, condos, HOAs and their managing agents must comply with the Fair Chance Housing Act when reviewing purchase or rental applications. This includes:
Modifying application procedures: Co-ops, condos and HOAs must update their application procedures to comply with the law’s restrictions on criminal background checks.
Conducting individualized assessments: Co-ops, condos and HOAs must conduct individualized assessments of applicants with criminal histories.
Providing written explanations for adverse actions: If they decide to take adverse action based on an applicant’s criminal history, they must provide the applicant with a written explanation of the reasons for the adverse action.
Right of First Refusal
The law does not specifically address a condo or HOAs right of first refusal. It speaks in terms of refusing to sell, rent or lease and approving such like a coop approves a transfer of shares to a coop apartment. The law, however, includes a paragraph outlawing discrimination against an individual in the terms, conditions or privileges of the sale, rental or lease because of such individual’s criminal history. We expect an argument to be made that a condo board’s decision as to whether to exercise a right of first refusal concerning a sale or lease of a unit based on criminal history covered by the law, would be discrimination. So, coop, condo and HOA boards have to be careful in their application processes and decision making where criminal history is being considered and decided upon.
Recommendations for Boards and their Property Managers
Consult with an attorney: Boards and their property managers (who are also covered by the law) should consult with their attorney to ensure that their policies and procedures comply with the Fair Chance Housing Act.
Update application forms: Application forms should be updated to remove any questions about criminal history and criminal background checks should be performed after initial affirmative decisions are made and then a final decision can be made in compliance with the Act. If a denial of a transfer application or exercising of the right of first refusal is made without a criminal background check, then there is no need to even perform one and the decision can be relayed to the appropriate parties so that there is not even a question as to whether there was a violation of the Act.
Train staff and board members: Property managers and board members should be trained on the requirements of the Fair Chance Housing Act to make sure there is compliance.
The Fair Chance Housing Act is a significant change to New York City’s housing laws. Community association boards and their managers must take steps to comply with the law before it takes effect on January 1, 2025. Failure to comply could result in legal liability.
Last week, District Judge Amos L. Mazzant of the Eastern District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction ordering that the entire Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) is enjoined nationwide and that the US government in enjoined from enforcing the BOI Reporting Rule (the final rule implementing the CTA and providing definitions and guidance for the statute) and the Jan. 1, 2025, compliance deadline.
The US government filed a notice of appeal and yesterday filed a motion request to Judge Mazzant to stay the preliminary injunction because the government is appealing to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and if Judge Mazzant doesn’t do so, the government provided that it would seek this relief today or tomorrow December 13, 2024, for a lift of the nationwide stay by the Court of Appeals.
We have explained that the trouble with not complying with the CTA is, what happens when the injunction is lifted and compliance is required before January 1, 2025. It does not appear based on the government’s actions that FinCEN will give an extension to comply before penalties kick in on January 1, 2025. It seems reasonable to do so, but not guaranteed based on FinCEN’s message that reporting companies can continue to comply if they want to.
We will keep you posted of developments. For now, although the nationwide preliminary injunction relieves the immediate obligation – i.e., right now – to file beneficial ownership reports with FinCEN, it would be prudent for non-exempt reporting entities that haven’t yet filed to continue to prepare for their report filing by continuing to gather all information and documents that the CTA requires. If it turns out that compliance is not required, then they don’t have to submit their report to FinCEN, but if they do and FinCEN does not give a reasonable time thereafter for compliance, then reporting companies don’t have to scramble at the last minute to comply before the hefty $591 a day fines kick in.
