One owner writes that in a co-ownership they called an extraordinary meeting, indicating that it was the only summons for the approval and amendment of the regulations, for which a 70 percent quorum was required.
However –adds the consultant–, “at the beginning of the meeting it was determined that there was no quorum and, therefore, we had to meet again in three business days. In this second summons, which they have not made in writing so far, can they approve the reform of the regulation with the people who attend without being 70 percent, as they said? ”
The reader clarifies that “the first was done by sending emails and not in writing, assuming, surely, that everyone has it.”
Answer. Law 675 of 2001 establishes that every call will be made by means of a communication sent to the owners of each of the private units of the building or complex, to the last address registered by them.
If once the extraordinary meeting has been installed, it is evident that there is no quorum, a new meeting will be called on the third business day following the initial meeting, without prejudice to the provisions of the horizontal property regulations. Therefore, it is necessary to consult him in this regard. However, this second call must be recorded in the first.
It is also important to mention that the reform of the regulation must be approved with 70 percent of coefficients of co-ownership, even if the law establishes that the second call may meet and decide with a plural number of owners, regardless of the percentage of coefficients represented in the meeting.
Law 675 is express when it indicates that decisions that require a qualified quorum cannot be taken in second meetings, unless the majority required by law is obtained.
The administrator of a building comments that the property she is in charge of has very large apartments.
He explains that for this reason, and faced with the need to obtain additional income, several owner families decided many years ago to rent rooms for students.
Question: “By means of the regulation or through a reform to it, if required, can it be prohibited to continue doing this? When making a decision in that regard, is it possible that any right of the owners of these is violated? apartments?
Answer. It is necessary to analyze the case with more elements. However, initially, it must be taken into account that if the owners live in their apartments and rent a room, it is different from renting them for student accommodation.
Every building must comply with the horizontal property regulations and this with the license and urban regulations.
With this clarified, it is worth bearing in mind that the use of student residences is specific and is only allowed in certain areas of the city, where it can function under special conditions.
In the event that the regulations allow it – it is expressly established in the Zonal Planning Units (UPZ) – and the owners agree to totally or partially change this use, before requesting the license in one of the urban curatorships or in the planning offices, as the case may be, the approval of the owners’ assembly is required, together with the reform of the regulations.
This, therefore, forces to make the regulations related to this kind of use. In any case, all owners, tenants and other holders must respect the regulations and the rules of coexistence and security in force.
About the appointment of the administrator
Regarding adjustments to the regulations, an owner says that in his building – already reformed to Law 675 of 2001 – it is established as a function of the assembly to freely appoint and remove the administrator and his alternate for periods of one year, and set your remuneration. Some owners say that the regulations must be complied with, but others affirm that it should be the council that appoints the administrator in accordance with Law 675. Question: “Who is right?”
Answer. Law 675 assigns the assembly the power to freely appoint and remove the administrator and his alternate for specified periods and set their remuneration.
In addition, when referring to the legal representation of the legal entity, it provides that it corresponds to an administrator appointed by the assembly, noting that when the board of directors exists, it must choose it for the period determined by each horizontal property regulation.