Voting Majority

I wonder if this learned body could offer advice and opinions on the following. Our small community has a separate underground garage area divided into 52 numbered spaces each with its own escritura, area and markings. Most garages are bowned by apartment owners but some are owned by people who are not apartment owners. All are assumed to be equal and form a small sub-community on many issues. The non-marked area is common and available for movement about the garage spaces and is so shared and paid for by all garage owners - lights, doors, locks, disposal of rats, sweeping and general maintenance. Our president is holding an EGM to obtain support for taking some of the spare common area and marking out three more areas for use as extra garage spaces. I believe this will change the relationship between the total owned area and the common area and this can only be done with the unanimous support of the garage community. Our president thinks it needs only a simple majority to pass this proposal. Any thoughts or experience of similar situations would be most welcome.


This message was last edited by vistaverde on 10/30/2008.

 Spam post or abuse? Please let us know

From what you have said, I believe you are correct as you are changing the coefficients of part of the communal area. Thus I believe you need a 100% vote from ALL owners.

Also, as each  garage space has an individual Escritura, then you cannot simply 'mark out' three extra spaces. You as a community would have to 'sell' part of each owners coefficient of the communal area, register each 'space' and then have a 'new' Escritura for each in order to make them legal. Once they are legal, they can then be sold.

Ask Roberto, he will know.

Also Maria De Castro

This message was last edited by TechNoApe on 10/30/2008.

 Spam post or abuse? Please let us know

Agree with Techno. The quotas set out in the original master deed for the property can only be altered by unanimous consent of the other owners, or by court order, and would then have to be registered properly etc. etc.
On the other hand, if the extra spaces are only intended as guest parking, i.e. communal use, I suppose it won't be necessary. Somehow, though, I doubt whether all the other owners in your community will find that they get equal use (benefit) from these spaces, and that some memebers will have more visitors than others. Just out of interest, how many cars does the president own?
Alternatively, perhaps the intention is to rent the new spaces out, and the income used to reduce everyone's community fees?

 Spam post or abuse? Please let us know

Thank you learned people - The extra places in the garage may be used for cars or motos although they could also be used for people to store cases, old beds and etc. The need arises because some non-owners have used the the spare space to store household items. The spaces generated could be rented out as storage or used for car/motos etc. As generally normal car park spaces can be used for whatever purpose the owners decides. The scheme has been thought up as an alternative to the pres saying, in an authoritative growl - Pick up your beds/chair/junk and walk. (or hire one of the many available car park spaces) If there must be unanimous support the, as many of the garage owners are against the plan, it seems a waste of time to hold the EGM.

 Spam post or abuse? Please let us know

So if the newly created spaces are still intended for communal use, there will be no change of ownership of the relevant areas, so maybe registering them as parking places may not be strictly necessary. So perhaps the president can get away with just a majority vote. But how can you be sure that the spaces will be available for all the community to use equally? If someone decides to park 3 old bangers there and leave them there, what can be done?
Wouldn't it be more to the point to notify all owners that all personal items must be removed from the garage, which is for cars only, and anything still there after a certain date will be thrown out? I'm sure beds and old furniture would constitute a potential fire hazard, and would negate any insurance claim in such an event.

 Spam post or abuse? Please let us know