In the present case, it appears from the defense of the opposing company that the opposition has been notified rather than to the appellant’s attorney at the registered office or residence of the legal representative so that the hypothesis is null and void non-existence of the notification. This defect, however, is to be considered remedied following the filing of the party. Make a visit to https://www.atlantadreamliving.com/ for the perfect results in this case.
Equally unfounded is the exception of a lack of active legitimation.
- As you know, the condominium is not a legal entity with its own personality separate from that of those who are part of it. Rather, it is configured as a management body that operates in representation and in the common interest of the participants.
- This said, the existence of a unitary representative body, such as the administrator, does not deprive the individual participants of the right to work to defend the common rights, pertaining to the condominium building.
- On a practical level, this implies that each individual condominium has the right to take legal action and intervene in the same, when this defense has already been taken by the administrator, but also, as in the case in question, to propose opposition to the injunction issued against the condominium. This is because the condominium retains the power to act not only to defend its rights as the exclusive owner but also against its pro quota co-owner rights of the common parts, with the possibility of resorting to the judicial authority in the event of inertia of the condominium administration. The Civil Code dictated on the subject of communion, but also applicable to the condominium of buildings for the postponement set by art.
The opposite company claims to have intervened in the condominium building to remedy previous works carried out by other companies and in order to replace some beams, a beam and several meters of material wasted. However, it denies any responsibility for the harmful event reported by the opponent.
The judge considers that the opposing party has not adequately satisfied the burden of the allegation that was incumbent upon him. Indeed, it did not indicate when or exactly where the harmful event would occur, so that the question asked suffers from indeterminacy.
If an exclusive property in a condominium is sold, in which extraordinary maintenance works have been approved to repair damage already caused to a single condominium, carried out after the sale, in order to identify the person obliged to contribute to the condominium expenses, it must be considered that the verification of the emergency or amendment of damages to third parties, carried out by the condominium, determines the onset of the conservative obligation for all condominiums.
It also places any subsequent approval of the related expenses in a purely executive and external perspective with respect to the already completed identification of the person responsible. The resolution of the assembly approving the expenses, therefore, has the function of liquidating the debt of each participant, while the subsequent resolution for the distribution of expenses has the additional function of determining in concrete the portion that each is required to pay. In this case, the subjects obliged to pay compensation had to be identified in those who held the status of condominiums at the time when the maintenance obligation remained unfulfilled, and since this obligation dates back to the period prior to the purchase of the property, the opponent it was not required to pay anything and, therefore, no enforcement action could be brought against it.