A question on the new Floor easement law please

Lazy days


Joined: 24/07/2008
Posts: 847

Message Posted:
10/12/2010 09:20

Reading and deciphering the new floor easement law for another forum, one thing I am pondering is in part 6 Para. 36 (3) it states:-

In case all of the sections of the main immovable is owned by one person, the owner is legally in the position of administrator.

Without wishing to start world war three again, can maybe Elko 2 tell me does this mean then that the developer is considered to be the owner until such time as the parcelisation occurs and the purchasers are issued their Kocan's

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
10/12/2010 09:29

Do you mean this bit



"In case all of the sections of the main immovable is owned by one person, the owner is legally in the position of administrator. "





I think this means that if the site is owned by one person ie no other owners they are automatically the administrator ie it maybe that it is leased rather than sold to others (landlord) well thats how I read it !



S

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
10/12/2010 09:35

sorry forgot to say



I believe Elko said before that this is now not the case that the developer is deemed the owner until Kochans have been issued as they have a contract with the owners - a contract of intent - which is why this law has been passed to stop Developers appointing MC's without the contracted owners say in the matter - again this is my understanding of it

Lazy days


Joined: 24/07/2008
Posts: 847

Message Posted:
10/12/2010 10:04

It is very confusing Sienna as my reading of it is different, say for example - if people have not adhered to the law as it now stands, eg:- they have not got the proper procedures in place - they have not paid their obligated fees etc etc, then could the law say that any contract has been broken and the floor ownership reverts to the developer meanwhile, just a different view of the interpretation.

I also really dont think this law has been passed to stop developers appointing M/C (with respect), more it has been passed to ensure the smooth running of the complex by competently elected administrators, and so that it does not fall into disrepair because of non participating/paying owners.

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
10/12/2010 10:17

I see what you are saying BUT there is a procedure for you interpretation under a different section



I think the law will help both senerios - wrong choice of words that it was solely passed for one reason, my error didnt quiet mean it that way

Lazy days


Joined: 24/07/2008
Posts: 847

Message Posted:
10/12/2010 10:23

No problem sienna I appreciate what you were getting at , I have been going through it with a fine toothcomb so to speak for http://www.glencoecyprus.com board and have been writing it up for Greg to post on the users complex forum, the Law is a bit all over the place but we are getting there only about 8 pages to go now but think I will call it a day for now, shopping beckons

Speak later

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
10/12/2010 13:04

One can never answer a legal question with certainty unless it is tested through the courts and a precedence established.



The clauses about the management of a site or apartment was included in the Easments law which does not really have anything to do with it but it was convenient to do so.



The general rule with management is that each owner has one vote but no sigle owner can have more than a third of the total votes no matter how many units he owns unless he owns the lot.



If people are living in houses but have not got the title deeds, the title deed owner may say that he owns the lot and can decide on the management company. That is finbe with me as long as he foots the total bill. Otherwise, if the contractual owners have to foot the bill, they must have a say in the choice of the management company. This is common legal sense to me but can we assume that the judge presiding over such a case has the same legal common sense as me ?

ismet

Lazy days


Joined: 24/07/2008
Posts: 847

Message Posted:
10/12/2010 13:57

Many thanks for your input Ismet it is much appreciated.



It is just as I thought, it would have to be tried in the court for precedence to be set, but it is there to be tested and I doubt very much if any developer/owner would be happy to foot the bill for the entire complex initially.



My biggest argument is that it is that some of the contractual owners refuse payment of fees on the pretext of a site not being complete and it only holds everything back, causes huge ill feeling and ultimately costs everybody more, in my opinion better to pay and watch the complex grow and have harmony, where people can enjoy their investment/holiday home/home in the sun, while taking their personal issues up with the correct authority, or better still dont sign an acceptance, thus binding yourself to an agreement in principle.

Alas some think differently and everybody suffers :(

I hope when the cases come to court the judge will apply the same rationale and legal common sense as your good self