Good morning. In the last Board of the community in which I live it was appointed as the new President to the husband of one owner who died recently and on which this man has the usufruct of the property. But can a person who is not the owner of the building but only the usufruct be appointed President?
Administrator: Juan López
Good morning. If this person has the usufruct of the property, it lacks the essential element for the appointment which is the position of owner as established in article 13.2 of the LPH. Therefore, that person could not be named as such, because the functions of the usufructuary are not the same than owner´s rights.
Good afternoon. I am tenant of a site in a building located in Murcia, where I settled my business. Since a while, each time that we got rains, there are filtrations in my site coming from the community terrace. This causes damages to my furniture and affect to my business. The community only carry out light repairs but not solving the problem definitely. . My problem is that the community says that the repairs have been done and washes his hands. What should I do?
Administrator: Juan López
Good afternoon. Firtsly, you are not the person who shall report to the community but the owner of the site, your landlord who needs to initiate the relevant actions. So, you should report this to the landlord so he can complaint. But providing that the community is doing some repairs, this cold be sorted kindly. He shall appeal to the President and the administrator requiring to have the definitive works done to sort the problem out. If the problem is due to bad isolation, the community is responsible of fixing it, unless the statutes states a different thing, so I recommend your landlord to check it first.
Good afternoon. Last week we had Owners Meeting in which, among other issues, it was raised to carry out a work to replace the floor of the entrance, changing the current marble by another of laminated flooring, for purely aesthetic reasons (the floor is in perfect condition). The result of the vote was of simple majority in favour of executing the work, but they have told me that for this type of work is needed more than a simple majority. Is that correct?
Administrator: Agustín Pascual del Riquelme
Good afternoon. Article 17.4 of the LPH establishes that if it is a work not required (i.e. an improvement not required for the proper conservation of the building), the majority for approval is the 3/5 parts of owners and participation fees. If such majority is reached and approves the work, if your cost by owner exceeds the equivalent of 3 regular fees, the owners who voted against are not obligated to pay.
As it is a work that you want to run for aesthetic reasons, the need, or rather the fact here is obvious and would operate the mentioned article 17.4.