Thai Condominium Act 2008

[Delight]

As I read it -in relation to a Co-Owner vote when removing and appointing managers(for example) if 26% vote "Agree" and 74% vote "Not Agree'' -to the proposal from committee then the "Agree" get the decision.

Is this about practicalities rather than Democracy?

Edited April 6, 2010 by Delight

[trajan]

Condo Act

Section 49 of the Condo Act states that an appointment or removal of the condo manager requires not less than one-fourth of the total number of possible votes of the co-owners.

Section 43 states that a quorum of the meeting requires co-owner attendants with rights to vote not less than one-fourth of the total number of possible votes.

(example) 75% attending a Meeting

its not likely that you will have 100% attendance at the meeting, but if you had, for example, 75% of all possible votes in attendance at the meeting (and 25% vote to remove a manager and 50% vote against removal, then the manager stays because of the vote is against the resolution).

(example) 30% attending a Meeting

however, let's say that you only got 30% of all possible votes to attend the meeting (you still have a quorum), but 20% vote to remove the manager and 10% vote against...the manager stays, because even though the majority at the meeting won the resolution, the vote did not reach the legal minumum of 25% of the total number of possible votes...

[Delight]

Condo Act

Section 49 of the Condo Act states that an appointment or removal of the condo manager requires not less than one-fourth of the total number of possible votes of the co-owners.

Section 43 states that a quorum of the meeting requires co-owner attendants with rights to vote not less than one-fourth of the total number of possible votes.

(example) 75% attending a Meeting

its not likely that you will have 100% attendance at the meeting, but if you had, for example, 75% of all possible votes in attendance at the meeting (and 25% vote to remove a manager and 50% vote against removal, then the manager stays because of the vote is against the resolution).

(example) 30% attending a Meeting

however, let's say that you only got 30% of all possible votes to attend the meeting (you still have a quorum), but 20% vote to remove the manager and 10% vote against...the manager stays, because even though the majority at the meeting won the resolution, the vote did not reach the legal minumum of 25% of the total number of possible votes...

Thank you for clearing that up

One further Q.

Do proxies count as"' Votes in Attendance""?

Edited April 7, 2010 by Delight

[briley]

proxy votes are votes in attendance - they are represented at the meeting.

But Trajan, I've a problem with this bit:

(example) 30% attending a Meeting

however, let's say that you only got 30% of all possible votes to attend the meeting (you still have a quorum), but 20% vote to remove the manager and 10% vote against...the manager stays, because even though the majority at the meeting won the resolution, the vote did not reach the legal minumum of 25% of the total number of possible votes.

For chucking out a manger and a few other bits you have to have 50% or the owners represented at the meeting, physically or proxies. And then you must have a majority of the vote.

You are correct that the manager in your example would stay, but even if the full 30% of those attending voted to chuck them out there was not 50% of the owners represented so the manager would stay.

My reading of the law anyway.

[Raptor7]

proxy votes are votes in attendance - they are represented at the meeting.

But Trajan, I've a problem with this bit:

(example) 30% attending a Meeting

however, let's say that you only got 30% of all possible votes to attend the meeting (you still have a quorum), but 20% vote to remove the manager and 10% vote against...the manager stays, because even though the majority at the meeting won the resolution, the vote did not reach the legal minumum of 25% of the total number of possible votes.

For chucking out a manger and a few other bits you have to have 50% or the owners represented at the meeting, physically or proxies. And then you must have a majority of the vote.

You are correct that the manager in your example would stay, but even if the full 30% of those attending voted to chuck them out there was not 50% of the owners represented so the manager would stay.

My reading of the law anyway.

as noted above, Section 43 of the Condo Act states that a meeting quorum requires co-owners attending with rights to vote not less than one-fourth of the total number of possible votes. In other words, you can have a meeting without 50% of the possible co-owners votes present in person (or by proxy).

is there another section of the law that you are reading that requires a 50% attendance?

[Delight]

proxy votes are votes in attendance - they are represented at the meeting.

But Trajan, I've a problem with this bit:

(example) 30% attending a Meeting

however, let's say that you only got 30% of all possible votes to attend the meeting (you still have a quorum), but 20% vote to remove the manager and 10% vote against...the manager stays, because even though the majority at the meeting won the resolution, the vote did not reach the legal minumum of 25% of the total number of possible votes.

For chucking out a manger and a few other bits you have to have 50% or the owners represented at the meeting, physically or proxies. And then you must have a majority of the vote.

You are correct that the manager in your example would stay, but even if the full 30% of those attending voted to chuck them out there was not 50% of the owners represented so the manager would stay.

My reading of the law anyway.

My reading is not quite the same.

A Appointing and removing a manager

B Indicating operations which can be delegated by the manager

Require a majority of the total votes cast,and that number of votes cast must be no less than the one-fourth of the number of votes total in the entire condo.

Issues such as buying /selling property,altering the Condo physically ,in some way-- require a majority vote and that number of votes cast must be no less than one-half of the number of votes total in the entire Condo. I guess in this circumstance if you get the latter you will automatically get the former

Am I reading it Right?

Edited April 8, 2010 by Delight

[briley]

I'm wrong - 25% of the votes to replace a manager - as section 49

I though forced replacement of manager was covered in section 48 which requires "Not less than one half of the total number of votes of all joint owners".

This is the section I am dealing with currently, purchase of immovable property and para 3 (not going to copy all of that)

[trajan]

yes, the items under Section 48 are more serious (like buying real property or modifying condo units which effect common property or exterior of building etc.) and require at least 50% of all possible votes (or at a second meeting at least 30% of all possible votes).

under Section 49 (to appoint or remove a manager), the threshold vote is lower....at least 25% of all possible votes....

[Delight]

Condo Act

Section 49 of the Condo Act states that an appointment or removal of the condo manager requires not less than one-fourth of the total number of possible votes of the co-owners.

Section 43 states that a quorum of the meeting requires co-owner attendants with rights to vote not less than one-fourth of the total number of possible votes.

(example) 75% attending a Meeting

its not likely that you will have 100% attendance at the meeting, but if you had, for example, 75% of all possible votes in attendance at the meeting (and 25% vote to remove a manager and 50% vote against removal, then the manager stays because of the vote is against the resolution).

(example) 30% attending a Meeting

however, let's say that you only got 30% of all possible votes to attend the meeting (you still have a quorum), but 20% vote to remove the manager and 10% vote against...the manager stays, because even though the majority at the meeting won the resolution, the vote did not reach the legal minumum of 25% of the total number of possible votes...

Will the number of total votes reduce at a Co-Owners meetings ,if 1 or more of the Co-Owners has has his/her voting rights legally suspended as a consequence of problems with unpaid bills?

Does the answer apply to all types of Co-Owner meetings?

[Delight]

Condo Act

Section 49 of the Condo Act states that an appointment or removal of the condo manager requires not less than one-fourth of the total number of possible votes of the co-owners.

Section 43 states that a quorum of the meeting requires co-owner attendants with rights to vote not less than one-fourth of the total number of possible votes.

(example) 75% attending a Meeting

its not likely that you will have 100% attendance at the meeting, but if you had, for example, 75% of all possible votes in attendance at the meeting (and 25% vote to remove a manager and 50% vote against removal, then the manager stays because of the vote is against the resolution).

(example) 30% attending a Meeting

however, let's say that you only got 30% of all possible votes to attend the meeting (you still have a quorum), but 20% vote to remove the manager and 10% vote against...the manager stays, because even though the majority at the meeting won the resolution, the vote did not reach the legal minumum of 25% of the total number of possible votes...

Will the number of total votes reduce at a Co-Owners meetings ,if 1 or more of the Co-Owners has has his/her voting rights legally suspended as a consequence of problems with unpaid bills?

Does the answer apply to all types of Co-Owner meetings?

[ChiangMaiFun]

Does it need 50% of the Total owners votes to change use of commerical to residential?

and allow an owners to change the use of a piece of common area for his own benefit?

Had a meeting recently and only about 30% turned up but both motions were passed with 30% (with proxies) of the total ownership - is this legal?