Unaminity votes

With a unaminity vote required to ammmend the community statutes. Does this include owners who are debtors with their community fees or are they not included

I think I would add to Noddy's comment

 100% of those eligible to vote who are in attendance of the meeting (AGM or EGM) and I do not think proxy votes are allowed for statute changes

At a presentation, Davis Searle, the well-known author of  "You And The Law In Spain"  said a vote to change statues, or the use of  part of the community, he mentioned changing a garden into a car park, etc. required a 100% vote of the whole community, not just those present.   He did say if one or two continued to vote against the wishes of the almost 100% majority, a court could over rule them if they were being 'unreasonable.'

As far as I recall, he did not mention what would happen if there were debtors who were not being allowed to vote

johnzx

Intresting comment about required a 100% vote of the whole community this would be even more diffcult to acheive than a unanimous vote!!

I would suggest in practice diifcult to implement for the following (and probably many more):

1.Some owners simply never attend an AGM for various reasons

2. Some owners never give a proxy (even if allowed)

3. Some properties are in ownership dispute (e.g. shared ownership disputes, bankruptcy, testate etc.)

4. Some owners never vote at a meeting (abstaining)

5. I am not aware of any compulsory voting or meeting attedance or giving proxies requirement

If the presenter is correct then just about every case a court order would be required and the courts would be full (maybe they are)!!

I think non-attendees are counted in favour after 30 days (period required for objection) but how this affects changes statute changes, I do not know. Perhaps Maria can enlighten on her return from holiday. Meanhwile attached for reference is her guide on 2013 legislation update.

http://issuu.com/mariadecastro/docs/ley_de_propiedad_horizontal_tras_re

Saludos

From searching on the internet it would seems that the Horizontal Property Law was changed in 1999 .  Prior to that the 100% rule applied.  It maybe a two thirds majority now.

The presentation when David Searle made the comment I quoted was probablly before 1999

This message was last edited by johnzx on 24/08/2015.

No I think it was updated in 2013. Also see this link on Q&A from Maria

http://www.eyeonspain.com/blogs/costaluz/15193/legal-tip-1316-questions-on-community-of-owners.aspx

HORIZONTAL PROPERTY ACT     Reform 1999

can be foun d here:-  http://www.eyeonspain.com/spain-magazine/horizontal-laws.pdf

The 2013 amendment can be found here:- 

http://www.eyeonspain.com/blogs/costaluz/10937/Legal-tip-998-NEW-Horizontal-Property-Act-June-2013-Part-I.aspx

From what I can see the changes to the HPA do not affect the unanimity required for most changes especially to the community statutes.

In fact Article 17 has not changed other than for certain items in article 10 & 11 relating to buildings and improvements where a 3/5 majority is required.

The unanimity vote is still required and as the HPA recognises a minimum quorum for a meeting then the 100% voting must be from that quorum and absentees will not be included

As juansheetisplenty's  said maybe absenteeism is an assumed positive support – which seems a bit odd as all it really says or means is that they cannot vote against or object to the change!!.

Let’s see what Maria has to say

As juansheetisplenty's  said maybe absenteeism is an assumed positive support – which seems a bit odd as all it really says or means is that they cannot vote against or object to the change!!.

That is what the HPA says, at one f the quotes I gave,

" To the effects established in the preceding paragraphs of this rule, the votes of duly summoned unit

owners absent from the meeting shall be computed as favourable if, having been informed of the

resolution adopted by those present in conformity with the procedure established in section 9, they did not

state their dissent to the person acting as community secretary within thirty natural days, by any means

ensuring record of delivery.

Middle and all:

Apologies for the delayed response, I have been on vacations in this gorgeous village where my dad was born and grew up. I encourage you all to visit it ( see video below)

As an aswer to your question: Debtors are not counted among voters for any decission of the community of owners,  whatever the needed quorum is. They have NO DECISSION POWER till they pay. So changes of the statutes ca be done without their vote/consent.

As Tad1966 says, voting owners are those in attendance to the legally called meeting ( either ordinary or extraordinary)

As unanimity of paying owners is required, those absent to the meeting will be notified of the decission and their vote will be taken as in favour of the Statutes modification if they do not communicate an opposition to the Secretary within 30 natural days from reception of the minutes.

Arbitration, expert opinions and judicial actions are available resources for this procedure.

With regard to what has been said on here I have a question regarding unanimity as it now stands.

There is a community of 10 houses, all the same size, and a communial swimming pool. Each property therefore has 10% of the urbinisation etc. It is proposed that another 5 houses are built adjoining the existing ones but there is no room for another swimming pool. The proposal is that they all share the pool and other common parts and then everybody will own 6.6667% of the total. The question is does everyone on the existing urb. HAVE to accept the majority vote or can 1 owner who is in arrears on his fees etc. stop the proposal?

The owner who is in arrears of his fees cannot stop the proposal.

If he paid and his opposition is detrimental to the Community , you can use a judicial action.

I would advise arbitration to be settled as  the conflict resolution system for internal matters when new statutes are approved.