scholarly journals General Meeting of Owners of Premises in an Apartment Building: Problems of Legal Status and Implementation of Certain Powers

2019 ◽  
pp. 79-85
Author(s):  
L. A. Yuryeva
Keyword(s):  
Common Property ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
General Meeting ◽  
The Body ◽  
Apartment Building ◽  
Non Profit ◽  
Homeowners Association ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Common ◽  
Common House

The article defines the place and significance of the general meeting of owners of apartment building premises in modern legal science and jurisprudence. The author classifies the issues referred to the jurisdiction of this body on the basis of functional and quantitative criteria. Attention is drawn to the ambiguity of the wording of certain powers of the general meeting, which creates difficulties for their implementation. The author highlights expediency of clarifications made by the Supreme Court concerning the content of powers of the body under consideration to make decisions concerning the limits imposed on the use and improvement of the land plot that is the part of the common property of the owners. The author has detected duplication of the general meeting powers to make decisions on establishment of a capital repair foundation and maintenance of common house property and the initiative-forming body of the homeowners’ association when the non-profit organization manages the premises. The conclusion is made that legislative adjustment of these provisions is necessary in order to eliminate the conflict of powers between the bodies under considerations concrete proposals of legislative nature are given.

scholarly journals ECONOMIC ORGANIZATIONAL AND FINANCIAL ASPECTS OF ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATIONS OF CO-OWNERS OF APARTMENT BUILDINGS IN UKRAINE

2021 ◽  
pp. 77-84
Author(s):  
Svitlana Hanziuk
Keyword(s):  
Common Property ◽  
Financial Regulation ◽  
General Meeting ◽  
Poor Quality ◽  
Financial Resources ◽  
Apartment Building ◽  
Apartment Buildings ◽  
Building Management ◽  
Operational Activities ◽  
Local Budget

In the article identifies the economic essence of financial results and financial regulation of associations of co-owners of apartment buildings. The main financial aspects (budgeting, formation of structural components of the income portfolio and expenditure items, submission of financial statements of associations, participation in co-financing programs with the local budget) and economic and organizational aspects of the functioning of associations are considered. Chairman of the Board and the General Meeting). The existing forms of apartment building management in Ukraine have been studied (direct management of an apartment building, which is appropriate for multi-family buildings; building management by an association of apartment building co-owners and apartment building management by a management company). The preconditions for the creation and state of development of associations of co-owners of an apartment building in Ukraine, the region (Dnipropetrovsk region) and the city of Kamianske are analyzed. It was found that the number of associations in Ukraine has more than doubled in the last ten years, but the share in the total number of apartment buildings remains very small. The main legislative and regulatory framework for regulating the activities of associations of co-owners of apartment buildings in Ukraine is considered. The causes of occurrence and the amount of indebtedness of the population for payment for the maintenance of the house and adjacent territory are investigated. It has been established that the vast majority of the population does not pay for the maintenance of houses, primarily due to the provision of poor quality services, and not due to lack of financial resources. The main advantages of creating condominiums in Ukraine are highlighted (co-owners independently decide on house management, condominium members independently manage the common property of an apartment building and control the use of their financial resources, co-owners can earn money on joint property and spend money on landscaping, etc.) and shortcomings (difficulty in electing the initiative group and the chairman of the board, conducting financial and operational activities, ignorance of the chairmen and members of the board). The successful experience of the association of co-owners in Kamianske was studied.

scholarly journals The role of case law in judicial decision-making: A sociological perspective

Sociologija ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 57 (4) ◽  
pp. 593-619
Author(s):  
Tilen Stajnpihler
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The Body ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Citation Practices ◽  
The Republic

The article attempts to verify a common conception that has by now become an integral part of legal culture in civil law jurisdictions, namely, the conception that despite its unresolved legal status, case law (i.e. the body of past judicial decisions) is widely used by the courts when they are justifying their interpretative choices. For this purpose, an exploratory empirical study of court citation practices was conducted. The study focused on a sample of the officially reported decisions of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia and the appellate (Higher) courts on civil matters in 2011 that were publicly accessible on the official internet database of the Slovene courts. The aim of the study, which provides the first systematic outline of the use of case law in the judicial decision making process within the Slovene legal system, was to verify whether case law in fact constitutes an important factor in judicial decision-making. It did so by focusing on the extent and the manner in which Slovene courts refer to case law, as these may be inferred from the reasoning of their decisions.

Operation, maintenance and repair of the common property of an apartment building

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vladimir Akimov ◽  
Vladimir Komkov ◽  
Nadezhda Timahova
Keyword(s):  
Professional Education ◽  
Common Property ◽  
Educational Institutions ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Educational Organizations ◽  
Apartment Building ◽  
Maintenance And Repair ◽  
The Common ◽  
State Educational ◽  
Management Operation

The textbook provides information on the operation, maintenance and repair of the common property of an apartment building. Meets the requirements of the federal state educational standards of secondary vocational education of the latest generation. It is intended for students of secondary vocational educational institutions studying in the specialty 08.02.11 "Management, operation and maintenance of an apartment building". For students of secondary professional educational organizations and educational organizations of additional professional education.

scholarly journals Management of the common property of an apartment building: legal issues

2019 ◽  
Vol 110 ◽  
pp. 02096
Author(s):  
Ulyana Filatova ◽  
Natalia Dalbaeva ◽  
Nina Semeryanova ◽  
Ludmila Dolnikova ◽  
Dmitriy Bayanov
Keyword(s):  
Common Property ◽  
Residential Buildings ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Entrepreneurial Activity ◽  
Material Base ◽  
Apartment Building ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
Essential Condition ◽  
Long Time ◽  
The Common

The article discusses the main issues of the legal regime of public facilities in non-residential buildings, the system of management of such property. The relevance of the research topic is manifested in the following aspects. With the development of market economy, the need to use non-residential premises, including those located in buildings, has increased. The presence of material base is an essential condition for the development of entrepreneurial activity. However, legislative gaps in the field of common property management by owners of non-residential premises lead to deceleration of economic processes and adversely affect sustainable development and welfare of cities. For a long time, in theory and practice, there were different opinions about the possibility of extending, by analogy with the common property of the building, provisions on the common property regime of an apartment building. Despite the fact that the issue of legal vacuum was partially solved by the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation by the issuance of Resolution No. 64 of the Plenum of July 23, 2009, many questions on the legality of using the proclaimed analogy of the law still do not find an unequivocal solution in lawmaking and law enforcement activities of relevant legislative and judicial bodies.

scholarly journals Let's Talk About Royalties: The Continued Uncertainty Surrounding the Creation and Legal Status of the Overriding Royalty

2019 ◽  
pp. 335
Author(s):  
David LeGeyt ◽  
Ashley Weldon ◽  
Natasha Wood ◽  
Brendan Downey
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Property Right ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Creation ◽  
Legal Uncertainty

The oil and gas and mining industries developed the practice of creating royalties that would run with the land. This led to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Bank of Montreal v. Dynex Petroleum Ltd. Despite the decision in Dynex recognizing a new property right and changing the common law, the law remained unsettled until the Third Eye Capital Corporation v. Ressources Dianor Inc./Dianor Resources Inc. and Manitok Energy Inc (Re) decisions apparently simplified the concept of royalties as property interests. In this article, the authors explore the overriding royalty, its common law evolution, the uncertainties surrounding its proper legal characterization, the implications of such legal uncertainty, and the shift the Dianor and Manitok decisions represent, while considering the nature of the interests that royalties represent, the manner in which industry has attempted to protect those interests, and the efficacy of such attempts.

scholarly journals Law of Common Ownership in Connection with the Development of the Economy of the Collective Use of Goods and Services

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (11) ◽  
pp. 74-82
Author(s):  
I. Z. Ayusheeva
Keyword(s):  
Common Property ◽  
Sharing Economy ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Apartment Building ◽  
Goods And Services ◽  
Common Ownership ◽  
The Common ◽  
Shared Property ◽  
The Right ◽  
Joint Property

It becomes urgent to resolve the issue of developing the institution of law of common ownership,  as well as property law in general, regarding the fact that property law needs reforming that has not yet been  implemented, due to the emergence, in the context of digitalization, of the economy of collective use of various  goods (sharing, the economy of shared consumption), changes in the culture of consumption and the fact that not  in all cases the acquisition of goods on the basis of sole ownership is economically justified. Users’ communities,  whose members jointly acquire objects for their collective use, including objects in common ownership, can be  considered as one of the forms of sharing. Peculiarities of exercising the right to common ownership in relation  to property in the context of a sharing economy make it possible to talk about the possibility of separating an  independent type of common property along with shared and joint property (for example, collective common  property) or distinguishing a variety of common shared property—by analogy with the right of ownership to the  common property of an apartment building. The peculiarities of the implementation of this type of common  property can be enshrined in civil legislation.

scholarly journals Public Property Authorities

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 16-25
Author(s):  
Andrey B. Agapov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Common Property ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Public Property ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The City

The content of the powers of possession, use and disposal of public property of the federal government, the President of the Russian Federation, federal executive authorities is investigated. The article considers the prescriptions of the constitutions and charters of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, which determine the content of the powers to manage public property, while the presence of public (state and municipal), as well as private and intellectual property is postulated directly in the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The constitutional legislation of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation determines the foundations of the legal status of another type of public property, namely the common property of the city of Moscow and the Russian Federation, along with it, the Constitution of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) provides for the existence of collective property.

scholarly journals The law of private nuisance following Wu: Emanation and access

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Matthew Mazenier
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Common Property ◽  
The Body ◽  
Limited Effect ◽  
The Core ◽  
Lack Of Control ◽  
The Common ◽  
Right Of Access ◽  
The Relationship

<p>The boundaries of nuisance have traditionally been tightly guarded. However, the tort’s underlying concern for the protection of property rights has provided it with sufficient flexibility to adapt to changing social and legal circumstances. The New Zealand Court of Appeal’s decision in Body Corporate 366611 v Wu represents the extension of private nuisance to remedy gaps in the tort’s application to the relationship between body corporates and individual proprietors under the Unit Titles Act 1972. The case concerned the defendant Body Corporate’s denial of access to an individual proprietor with an interest in the common property from which the nuisance ‘emanated’. Though the Court erred in its interpretation of existing nuisance principles relating to emanation, its decision can be rationalised on the basis that the plaintiff’s lack of control and restricted access speak to the core interests protected by the tort. Given the Court’s finding that access restrictions may be reasonably imposed upon occupiers under the Body Corporate’s modified rules, the decision’s limited effect is to provide an individual proprietor with a figurative right of access. Outside of clarifying these doctrinal uncertainties, the decision does not produce lasting ramifications for private nuisance.</p>

scholarly journals The law of private nuisance following Wu: Emanation and access

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Matthew Mazenier
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Common Property ◽  
The Body ◽  
Limited Effect ◽  
The Core ◽  
Lack Of Control ◽  
The Common ◽  
Right Of Access ◽  
The Relationship

<p>The boundaries of nuisance have traditionally been tightly guarded. However, the tort’s underlying concern for the protection of property rights has provided it with sufficient flexibility to adapt to changing social and legal circumstances. The New Zealand Court of Appeal’s decision in Body Corporate 366611 v Wu represents the extension of private nuisance to remedy gaps in the tort’s application to the relationship between body corporates and individual proprietors under the Unit Titles Act 1972. The case concerned the defendant Body Corporate’s denial of access to an individual proprietor with an interest in the common property from which the nuisance ‘emanated’. Though the Court erred in its interpretation of existing nuisance principles relating to emanation, its decision can be rationalised on the basis that the plaintiff’s lack of control and restricted access speak to the core interests protected by the tort. Given the Court’s finding that access restrictions may be reasonably imposed upon occupiers under the Body Corporate’s modified rules, the decision’s limited effect is to provide an individual proprietor with a figurative right of access. Outside of clarifying these doctrinal uncertainties, the decision does not produce lasting ramifications for private nuisance.</p>

Features of inheritance of some categories of residential properties

2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (9) ◽  
pp. 171-186
Author(s):  
Светлана Чернякова ◽  
Svetlana Chernyakova
Keyword(s):  
Common Property ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
General Procedure ◽  
General Rule ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Housing Cooperatives ◽  
Common Ownership ◽  
The Common ◽  
State Registration ◽  
The Right

The article considers the issues of inheritance of privatized dwellings with encumbered rights of citizens having the right to use the living quarters; premises in houses of housing and housing co-operatives; as well as the peculiarities of inheritance of shares in the common ownership of a dwelling. The author points out that the inheritance of privatized premises which are individually owned, carried out in a general manner. However, there are several problems associated with inheritance. In accordance with the Family Code property received by one spouse to the gratuitous transactions, is their property. Therefore, if privatization took place in the payment of certain sums of money, in this case, there is a common joint property of the spouses; if the transfer occurred gratuitously, the subject of property rights is a person with whom the contract was made. The question of inheritance of premises in houses of housing and housing cooperatives is studied. The specifics of the legal regulation of these relations are determined by the legal status of the cooperatives themselves. In contrast to the general rule, ownership does not arise from the state registration, and upon the payment of a contribution. Regardless of state registration and whether there is a document confirming the ownership of the dwelling, after the death of a member of the construction co-operative, who payd for shares, housing is inherited under the general procedure. The author studies the question about the features of transactions with shares in the common ownership of dwellings and residential premises belonging to the common ownership. In accordance with para. 2, Art. 246 of the Civil Code a co-owner has the discretion to sell, give, bequeath, pledge in its share or dispose of it. It should be borne in mind that the sale and exchange shares in the common property shall be permitted only as subject to the preemptive rights of other participants in the acquisition of such shares. Housing is not recognized as common property, when it was purchased at the actual termination of the marriage, and, consequently, the other spouse does not have any rights to housing.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document