BOARD OF OWNERS: ATTENDANCE AND VOTING

The internal regulations of a property subject to this regime, must compulsorily contain the percentages that correspond to each owner in the ownership of common goods (article 39 inc. D) of Law No. 27157). These percentages will be the reference: (I) When paying the expenses for common services, conservation, maintenance and administration of the building; Y, (II) To attend, vote and / or adopt resolutions in the board sessions; in accordance with inc. e) of the aforementioned article. Sometimes there are doubts about how to proceed if only a spouse or co-owner attends the meeting, without a power of attorney from the spouse or co-owner: Should their attendance be recorded, but their percentage should not be counted for the calculation of the quorum? Is the percentage divided in two in the case of spouses and by the number of co-owners in the case of joint owners? Among others, they are frequently asked questions. Control of attendance or voting will depend on each case, in general, and on the agenda item, in particular. If it involves only administration aspects (example: electing a board of directors, etc.), any of the spouses or joint owners (one of these) could participate without requiring a power of attorney. However, I believe that they should not be considered in attendance and they could not vote, unless they have special power (by letter or mandate registered in the registry) for such purposes. If it is a community property partnership, let us remember that this is a common property regime, administered by both spouses, so they should both go and vote "jointly" (article 315 C.C). If he is a co-owner who attends, he could invoke the "de facto administration" (973 CC), but with respect to the exclusive good, and in the face of proven impossibility for the others to participate; since a decision (vote) linked to the administration of the common good in buildings should be previously agreed by an absolute majority of the co-owners. (Article 971 inc. 2 of the C.C) and having the power of representation for it. Doing so without this formality would oblige you to reimburse if a condominium owner claims, for example, that he did not authorize to pay an extraordinary fee. Source: El Peruano