If a builder or any other proprietor owns more than one property he has just one vote even thought he shall have the sum of the ‘quotas’ of his properties. (Court of Appeal Murcia 01 Jul 2005 amongst others)
That rule may be considered as unfair but it ensures that developers will not have effective control of the commonhold.
It must be recalled that the special system of majorities established by the Act requires in most of cases both the majority of the votes and the majority of commonhold allocations (quotas), which are necessary in order to reach the quorum for passing resolutions. Only section 16 (1) contains one assumption in which this double system of majorities established in the Act could be used alternatively.
It is deemed as a fraud of law that situation in which a commonholder owning more than one property appoints a proxy for each properly he owns, under section 6 (4) of the Civil Code which defines fraud of law.
Regarding the possibility of calling a meeting by one quarter of the owners or a number representing not less than one-fourth of the total commonhold allocations I have to say that it is not necessary to being up-to-date with community fees in order to sign the petition.
Being a defaulter has only the consequence of deprivation of voting rights as it is established in section 15 of the Act