Main Menu
Login
STO Forums
Type your search criteria above and click Search to search the forums.
To see if someone has already answered a query similar to yours, click the Search button above and search for terms related to your question.
Luxurious Improvements
Luxurious Improvements to the common property within a scheme normally requires a 100% agreement of all owners at an AGM. Can this be thwarted if an owner offers to cover all costs that may be incurred by the improvement and with only a majority of Trustee consent.
This relates to the installation of a 'Pitch and Put' type golf course on a portion of the common property.
Replies
You must login to post a reply.
RE: Luxurious Improvements
Follow
RE: RE: Luxurious Improvements
It is not necessarily 100 % of agreement of owners that is required, but a unanimous resolution that can be obtained at a general meeting in the prescribed manner at which 80% of owners are present by number and value(PQ) and each one must vote in favour. Alternatively 100% agreement may be obtained from each owner. See definition of Unanimous Resolution in the Definition Section No 1 of the S/T Act to be found in the Library Section of STO.
RE: Luxurious Improvements
The Act/Rules does not provide for an arrangement where PMR33 is side stepped by an offer from anyone to pay for the "improvement" - the procedure is still required and then the offer to pay can be accepted, if it then still stands!
The cost of the lux improvevent is but the tip of the iceberg. The "golf course" takes up area regarded as the CP and owners not having a fancy in the game will be offended. Plus: future maintenance and whatever goes with this sort of thing.
RE: RE: Luxurious Improvements
The only issue at present is the question if the golf course may be created. If the other side issues are regarded by the other owners as significant then all they have to do is to vote against it. A golf course cannot be considered as anything else but a luxurious improvement to common property.
RE: Luxurious Improvements
Refinement of your statement: all owners present at a meeting for which 30 days notice has been given "at which meeting at least 80% of all the members of a body
corporate (reckoned in number) and at least 80% of all the members (reckoned in value) are
present" need to be in agreement with luxurious improvements.
The issue of the improvement appear to me to be a principle decision, seperate from the funding decision.
I believe there could well be ground for apposing, regardless of no costs to the owners.
The opposer/s will have to present good argument as to why the 'pitch ad put' type golf course would not be in the interest of the scheme/owners.
RE: RE: Luxurious Improvements
Hi, All. Just an idea - PMR 33(1) specifically states that the Trustees may . . . effect luxurious improvements . . . In this case, it is an owner who wishes to effect the improvements (by paying for them) and not the trustees. That being so, would it not be acceptable for the owners by majority resolution at an AGM, to instruct the Trustees to allow such utilisation of the common property?
RE: RE: RE: Luxurious Improvements
Reading PMR33(1)no provision appears to exist for an owner to effect a luxurious improvement to common property. Seemingly only the trustees may do so. The question as to who pays for the particular improvement would appear to be irrelevant.
Just a thought.
RE: RE: Luxurious Improvements
A refinement of your statement. It is 30 days notice or less if it the matter is urgent. For the full story reference must be made to the definition of Unanimous Resolution. That is why I suggested referral to the Library Section of STO.
RE: RE: RE: Luxurious Improvements
John
Thanks for all the responses, as I am new to the site I have been amazed at the number of them. Unfortunately I cannot tell who is 'qualified' to comment and who is just a layman like myself. I was hoping for a reference to a previous court precedence for this sort of thing as everyone seems to understand the regulations differently. The pitch and put has already been built and I want to stop the planned expansion of it. Also I can foresee any Tom, Dick and Millionaire using the same arrangement to build garages or anything else on common property. I know they need Trustee agreement but this could come down to a corum of 3. I was hoping that this was legally beyond Trustee authority.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Luxurious Improvements
Tony- You may like to refer to High Court Judgement of 15 March 2005 Case No 3379/2003 that mandates that the rules must be followed- See Para 20. The question of interpretation was not addressed but undoubtedly the Rules of Interpretation of Statutes must be followed.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Luxurious Improvements
Hi, Tony. It depends on what you mean by "qualified". Most of the contributors to this site are in some way involved in the Sectional Titles scene (perhaps as Trustees), and in responses to a question you are accessing our collective experiences. Those who have attended a Paddocks' course are identified at the foot of their postings. Graham Paddock himself sometimes contributes to the discussions.
It's up to the users to decide on the value they put on responses - if further information is needed, there's always recourse to your friendly local lawyer!
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Luxurious Improvements
Hi Anne, thank you for your replies and info. Now I know. The reason I queried qualifications is because I am only a Trustee and a 'foreigner' to boot. I am up against other Trustees on home turf with lawyers on their payroll. I get the impression they get told by them what they want to hear and I cannot contradict them. From all I have witnessed I think our scheme is out of line with Sectional Title law in lots of respects but historically they had to to survive at all.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Luxurious Improvements
"The trustees may, if the owners by unanimous resolution so decide, effect or remove
improvements of a luxurious nature on the common property"
1. the trustess may ...
2. if the owners by unanimous ...
3. PMR 33(2)(ii)(aa) "the cost thereof"
I am of opinion there are three issues (recognsing my item 3 relates to non-luxurious), namely the trustees may NOT without the unanimous agreement of owners and the funding is obviously an issue. The latter out of the way (i.e. someone offers to pay) the owners still need to agree how the common property is used/reduced, etc.
RE: Luxurious Improvements
John, Thanks again but where do I find a copy of the judgement your refer to? I checked the STO library but did not see it.
RE: RE: Luxurious Improvements
Let me have your E mail and I will send you a PDF copy.
RE: RE: RE: Luxurious Improvements
Can I ask John or Tony to let me have a copy of the judgement as well.
My email address is : davewhite@telkomsa.net
RE: Luxurious Improvements
Thanks John, it is traponi@btinternet.com
Advertisements
Website Statistics
- Forum Topics: 6409
- Users: 14296
