Valid Agreements by only 1 member of the Owners' Association

A ruling by the Provincial Court of the Balearic Islands confirms that a single person attending the Owners’ Meeting can validly adopt agreements.

This was stated by the court in a resolution confirming the ruling by the Court of First Instance, which rejected the claim filed by the other owner of the Owners’ Association; that is, that the Owners’ Association was actually made up of only 2 people, and when the other stated that he was not going to attend, the attending neighbour was able to adopt valid agreements.

The minutes of the meeting that was being challenged showed that the meeting was held, in the second call, and with the sole attendance of the Defendant, who represented 37% of the co-ownership shares.

In this regard, the Provincial Court of the Balearic Islands cites a precedent, namely a ruling by the Provincial Court of Madrid in 2022 which stated: “With regard to the fact that a single owner attends the meeting of owners, even though, in general, it is usual for more than one owner to attend the meeting, nothing prevents it from being validly constituted with the presence of a single owner, as long as he or she meets the percentage of participation required to reach the legally required quorum in accordance with the provisions of article 17 of the Horizontal Property Law”. It is therefore precisely article 17 of the law that gives rise to the ruling discussed here, as it establishes that: “In the second call, the agreements adopted by the majority of those attending will be valid, provided that this represents, in turn, more than half of the value of the shares of those present”.

Quoting literally from the judgment: “The meeting was held at the second call, so the vote in favor of the majority of those present was sufficient, who in turn represented more than half the value of the shares of those present. The agreements were adopted by the only attendee who represented all the shares of those present, so they are valid”.

The agreements adopted: appointment of bodies, provision of funds, appointment of a manager, etc., did not require a qualified majority, in the terms indicated in art. 17 LPH. Furthermore, the plaintiff-appellant does not justify that the agreements are harmful or detrimental to the Community of Owners, or to any of its members.”

In short, in essence the Provincial Court of the Balearic Islands is telling us that, if the argument of the other co-owner is followed, in a Community of Owners of 2 neighbors it would be impossible to validly adopt any agreement, if one of them refuses to attend the meetings.

The most curious thing about the ruling is not only the unusual nature of the case, but also the fact that the other owner could have prevented the adoption of the aforementioned agreements, since he holds 63% of the participation. We are sure that both owners will be present at all the Owners’ Meetings from now on.