Clarification of the Horizontal Law of Property

 Hi Decordiva

We are also  having the same problem on our Urbanisation on 363 Properties consisting of  2 Adjoining Apartment Blocks with shared entrance lobbys,lifts,staircases,etc as well as Duplexes,Villas and Houses.
 

Maybe Maria of Costaluz Lawyers can clarify  these Issues in one her Legal Blogs.

Regards

This is hugely helpful, I feel we are being taken for being stupid and not being given clear and concise information however it seems this is a huge change for the community to undertake and we are being blinded with irrelevant information in order to force this through without any voting structure in place.

We are just being told this is how it is and this is what is going to happen.

Thank you, I will keep you updated on progress

 Hello;  This is a debatable point of community law where the community statutes are of some age & have come into conflict with the revised LPH.

Firstly ; I am surprised the matter has not been put  to a vote in the AGM of the community as a majority against or for would have been established which is a starting point in community legal matters. Hence the owners should serve notice on the community secretary by recorded delivery that this matter be debated at the forthcoming AGM as a agenda point to vote on. If the AGM is some time away & then if there are more than 25% of the community against it ( I note you say micro communities so this would mean each to have 25 % of their own quota for their own meeting of necessary) then a EGM can be called using this mechanism to vote on the matter.

The section of the LPH 10.1 obliges the community to undertake the upkeep & maintenance of the constructed areas you describe.Given this is the national law of Spain for communities then it would be superior to the statutes of the community.Which is basically the point the board & administrator is making in their communication to you.

With regard to the statutes & unanamity ;  the changes to them does not always require 100%  of the quota. In section17.1 of the LPH it is a requirement of 2/3 of the quotas but with consent of a affected owner required to change common services & facilities .In my opinion the constructed areas you describe fall outside of this clause and hence a ammendment to the statutes would need 100% of the quota in favor.

The vote following debate of the problem by the owners should be able to be agreed including the size of the budget for the community needed to maintain it's structures wether by extra fund or increased annual budget .

The solution in my view to this issue is in the budget requirement  not in the court room as the annual budget or extra fund can not be enforced on the members but must be approved by the member's vote in a formal meeting.Hence if the majority do not want the community to attend to their structure then they will not approve the funds to do the same . Hence the desicion lies with the members who decide by majority where their money is spent & how much.

I hope this helps.

F.Parkinson . Administradore.