Amending an HOA MOI that is detrimental to members' interests
This case involves an opposed application in which the Applicants sought relief concerning a Special Resolution adopted by the first Respondent (Landsmeer Homeowners’ Association) on 10 June 2021. The resolution aimed to amend the HOA'sMemorandum of Incorporation (MOI), specifically concerning the developer's (the second Respondent's) obligations to pay levies.
The price you pay for building out of time in a HOA
The primary issues at stake revolve around the validity of penalty levies imposed on the appellants for failing to construct properties within a specified timeframe.
Converting Garage Space
The document summarizes a legal case regarding the conversion of garages into living spaces within a body corporate, addressing the validity of special resolutions and conduct rules related to property use.
Pay your levies to avoid disconnection
The document summarizes a court judgment regarding a Body Corporate's successful application to disconnect a unit owner's electricity supply due to unpaid levies and electricity charges.
Ensuring CSOS rules only against materially interested parties
The case emphasizes the balance between developers' rights and body corporates' responsibilities under the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act. It highlights the importance of proper adjudication processes and the courts' role in ensuring fair outcomes in community scheme disputes.
The cost of thinking you know better
The applicant’s interpretation of the adjudicator’s findings was deemed incorrect, leading to the election of a rival board of trustees, which is not permissible.The applicant was found to lack locus standi (the right to bring the matter before the court), as the deponent to the founding affidavit was not authorized to act on behalf of the non-existent applicant.
Court unveils recklessness and collusion in company liquidation
The court recognized the complexity and factual disputes inherent in allegations of collusion and fraudulent conduct in the winding up of The Vines Construction (Pty) Ltd. While some relief under section 31 was granted, the serious allegations against the first respondent required a full trial for proper adjudication. The court stressed the importance of action proceedings for resolving disputed factual issues, particularly those involving intention, knowledge, and collusion.
Why legal standing matters when approaching the CSOS
The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to the legislative requirements concerning standing in disputes within community schemes. The ruling seeks to uphold the integrity of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act and ensure that disputes are resolved lawfully and justly.
Selling body corporate unit for R50,000.00 arrear levy debt
This judgment serves as a critical assessment of the roles within a body corporate and the implications of the Prescription Act on the collection of levies. The court's ruling affirms that ordinary members of a body corporate cannot be classified as part of the governing body for the purposes of delaying prescription, thus protecting members from undue claims over time.
Stay in your zone
This judgment means that if someone breaks zoning rules on shared property in a sectional title scheme, individual owners can take legal action themselves. They don’t need to wait for the body corporate to act, and they don’t have to prove they’re acting on behalf of the body corporate.
To demolish or not to demolish. That is the legal question (1)
The judgment highlights the importance of property rights and the rule of law concerning unlawful structures. It emphasises that courts will not allow illegal conduct to continue and that property owners are entitled to seek the removal of encroachments even after lengthy negotiations or attempts at settlement.
To demolish or not to demolish. That is the legal question (2)
The Supreme Court of Appeal’s judgment reaffirmed the rights of property owners to seek legal remedies against unlawful constructions that violate town planning schemes. The court's amendments to the initial orders emphasised the necessity of due process and safety in demolition procedures, reflecting a balance between individual property rights and community interests.
Final Order: The appeal was partially upheld, with the originalorder amended as detailed above, and costs awarded to the respondents.
This summary encapsulates the essential elements of the judgment, illustrating the legal principles engaged and the court's reasoning throughout the case.