Horizontal Law - Voting when you own multiple properties

Can you tell me if a person owns 3 properties do they get 3 votes or just the 1?

Thanks in advance.

If one person owns multiple apartments, then they get 1 vote for each apartment!

So, if they own 3 apartments, then they get 3 votes.

However, each property must be up to date with community fees If the same owner is behind with community fees, then they loose the vote for the properties they are behind with, not all

Thanks TechNoApe you are a star!

I thought you only got one vote regardless of how many properties you owned but that the co-efficients for each property were added together.

Noreen

 If the developer still owns a number of properties and his fees are paid up, does he get one vote per property as well?

nfm2862,

No! 1 property = 1 vote! Therefore 20 properties= 20 votes!

Hence why many developers have managed to 'screw' the system!

hugh_man,

Yes!

delza

The Horizontal Property act section 15.6 states, "a commonholder who owns more than one unit fas just one vote". Is`nt  this to ensure  the developer does not  have control over the community when voting on item`s ( commonhold)

Like Noreen say`s co-efficients for each property should also be added together, along with the vote`s

This double system of majorities set up in the Act requires both majorities; votes and coefficient, 

This is the method establishes in the Act in order to protect owners from other owners who own more than one property.

Perhaps worth speaking with your Aministrator, on how they normally deal with voting at your AGM`s / EGM`s?

Hi Davey

Many thanks for saving me a job rooting through the HPA because I knew that it was only one vote regardless of how many properties an owner has.

It is the adding together of the co-efficients that gives the weighting to any vote taken & it would be here that the developers who still own a number of properties would be able to get their own way.

However, show me a developer who is up to date on their community fees - ours certainly isn't!

Regards

Noreen

This is an example ( i received ) of how this  majorities system should work, imagine a community with 100 villas, each one with 1%. 51  of the properties are owned by the developer but as we know he has only one vote. This community is going to pass a resolution at a meeting where all the owners (49) and the developer are present at the meeting.
The cases could be:
 
Case 1º
49 owners are against, so they vote against the resolution and the developer with his 51 properties is for, so he vote for.
 
Outcome:
 
Votes in favor: 1
Coefficient in favor: 51%
 
Votes against :49
Coefficient against: 49%
 
As the double system of majorities set up in the Act requires both majorities; votes and coefficient, in this case we only reach the majority of coefficients lacking the majority of the votes. Therefore the resolution is not passed
 
Case 2º
49 owners are in favor of the resolution, so they vote for and the developer with his 51 properties is against, so he vote against.
 
Outcome:
 
Votes in favor: 49
Coefficient in favor: 49%
 
Votes against :1
Coefficient against: 51%
 
As the double system of majorities set up in the Act requires both majorities; votes and coefficient in this case we only reach the majority of votes lacking the majority of coefficients. Therefore the resolution is not passed.
 
This is the method establishes in the Act in order to protect owners from other owners who own more than one property

Davey, interesting. I don't disagree, in fact I think you probably have it spot on - a "majority of votes representing a majority of the assesment quotas" is a phrase I think crops up somewhere; it certainly makes a lot of sense. Although saying that, your example almost proves that in such circumstances, nothing will ever get passed, since the developer and the private owners almost always have opposing agendas and will simply cancel out each other at every turn.

But I'm curious to know where you got this "double majorities" system from? Every version of the Horizontal Law I have (Spanish or English translation) only has two sub sections in section 15. Do you have a different version to the one on EOS: http://www.eyeonspain.com/spain-magazine/horizontal-laws.pdf ?

 Devey is absolutely right.

 This issue is not regulated in Section 15 of the Act, but rather, in Section 17 which is quite long to copy here as it contains the general rule:  majority of votes by owners AND by percentages of ownership and many detailed exceptions where resolutions have to be passed either unanimously or by votes of BOTH owners AND percentages with a higher requirement.

Thanks, Lobin. I think you are right. Section 17, third part. The relevant part says:

"All other resolutions shall be adopted with the vote of a majority of the total number of unit owners representing a majority of the assessment quotas.
Where the meeting is held on second call, the resolutions adopted by a majority of those present shall be valid if they represent more than half the value of the assessment quotas of those present."

Interestingly, even if the meeting is convened on the second call (which is normal), it would still mean that neither of the scenarios proposed by davey will carry, because the developer will always have more than half of the assesment quotas present. And let's face it, even where the developer holds far less than 51%, the chances of enough other owners turning up to vote and make a difference is slim.

 One owner: one vote, regardless number of properties.

The quota he is representing ( which also has a value in terms of necessary quorum) I is the sum of the quotas of all his properties.

Maria thanks for you reply.

To make absolutely sure are you saying 1 Person 1 vote no matter how many properties they own?

EG:

1 Person who owns 1 property = 1 vote

1 Person who owns 3 properties = 1 vote

Correct?

Apart from the unlikely possibility of an owner voting differently for one of his properties to another, which wouldn't make much sense, I fail to see the real relevance of this. If someone owns 100 properties, it will cetainly save time if he only has one vote and doesn't have to be asked the same thing 100 times, but it's still the SUM of all his quotas that counts. Can anyone suggest a scenario where it would actually make any difference?

Hi All,

I have come across this thread with great interest as it covers the same area that I posted on previously on Democracy and Voting at Community meetings.

I wonder if Maria could make the position clearer,preferably using examples, as I am still confused as to the weight of the "vote","quota",or "co-efficient" that a Developer who owns a majority of the properties on a Community,can exercise at a Community meeting.

What I am interested in is,how are outcomes determined at Community meetings? Who exercises influence and  

power ?

It seems clear that in the scenario where a Developer still owns a majority of properties that one should not assume that the outcome and decisions of meetings will be determined by a majority of votes at meetings as the Developer can exercise more influence and power.And whilst a majority attending a meeting may want oucome X if the Developer is against outcome X he can block it.

 THe necessary backing of shares is for the decission to really be taken by real majorities.

Think of 20 owners of garages in a community meeting voting on something that affect apartments owners... it would not be real representation. That´s why the Horizontal Act requires votes first and then, it add an addittional reinforcement to the real representation of those votes by requesting that they really represent ownership majority quotas in the development.

Does this help to clarify? If not, please say and wil try to explain again. 

Summer decreases my levels of explanatory potential!!