Prev Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4 Next Please log in to reply 79 replies to this topic

[ripley]

   Huzzah! The "Glossary of Condominium Terms" has been posted and can be accessed along with this one on Google. Thanks to TVF, its contributors and their on-the-spot Moderators for smoothing out the glitches.
   Please post any comments, additions, corrections, etc. on this thread for consideration. We'll try out this method for a while in hopes of keeping the "Glossary" page simple and easy to read.

[ripley]

Here are 2 more terms I think should be in the Glossary. Any comments? If I don't hear anything in a week or so, shall just add them as is to the Glossary page.


Second Call Meeting: An EGM called 2 weeks after an AGM fails to achieve a quorum. (A Second Call Meeting does not require a quorum, but must have a minimum of 1/3 total co-owner votes to pass a resolution).

Quorum:   Not less than 1/4 the total of co-owners. (A quorum is required for an AGM to be constituted and valid.

[ripley]

Another addition to the Glossary, for your consideration:

B.E. 2252 and 2551; B.E. 2522 is the amended Thai Condominium Act introduced in 2008. B.E. 2551 contains further amendments to the act. Together they constitute the Thai Condominium Act to date (January, 2012)

Edited by ripley, 2012-01-13 11:35:46.

[ripley]

Varieties of "Special Assessments" or "Special Funds" are currently being proposed at AGMs. A condo administration sometimes opts to propose one of these to increase maintenance monies or for use in repairs and renovations, in the belief that these funds do not require a vote of 50% of the total co-owners.

   On another thread about Maintenance Fee Increases or Special Funds, although there is a consensus that such funds can be useful,  there are differing opinions as to the percentage of total co-owner votes required to pass a Special Assessment. There is also some question as to what constitutes a legal Special Assessment.

   The Glossary is intended for definitions of Condominium terms which are consistent with Thai Condominium Law. So, can we accurately define "Special Assessments"?

   Any ideas?

[ripley]

A recent thread on Maintenance Fund Increases and "Special Assessments" brings into question the definition of "Second Call Meetings". Our definition specifies a requirement of 1/3 total co-owner votes to pass a resolution at a Second Call Mtng., whereas it appears that this requirement only applies to resolutions specified in Section 48 of the most recent (July, 2008) version of Thai Condo Law. While it is my opinion that this interpretation is such a departure from the customary reading  and implementation of the Act that we need test cases from both the Land Office and possibly the courts, in the circumstances I think the definition in the glossary is misleading.

Shall we add a note to the Glossary to this effect? Or perhaps just shorten the current definition to read:

Second Call Meeting: An EGM called 2 weeks after an AGM fails to achieve a quorum. The EGM does not require a quorum to be valid.

[Delight]

Maybe:-
Second Call Meeting: An EGM called 2 weeks after an AGM fails to achieve a quorum. The EGM does not require a quorum to be valid.
Those issues which required a 50% vote(as per Chapter 5 Section 48 of the ACT) now only require to win the vote and have minimum   1/3 of total building vote.
The  25 %  voting requirement (Chapter 5 Section 49 of the Act) remains unchanged


This always struck me as curious

If they could not get 25% to the first meeting-do they seriously expect to get 1/3 at the 2nd

[ripley]

Maybe:-
Second Call Meeting: An EGM called 2 weeks after an AGM fails to achieve a quorum. The EGM does not require a quorum to be valid.
   There is a requirement of 1/3 co-owner votes to pass a resolution at a Second Call mtng. (Sec. 43).
   At a Second Call mtng. those issues which required a 50% vote(as per Chapter 5 Section 48 of the ACT) only require a minimum 1/3 of total building vote.
    The 25 % voting requirement (Chapter 5 Section 49 of the Act) remains unchanged.

I agree with your comment but then "Hope Springs Eternal"! At least there are two weeks to drum up more support for an issue.

[Delight]

ripley, on 2012-03-18 15:44:45, said:

Maybe:-
Second Call Meeting: An EGM called 2 weeks after an AGM fails to achieve a quorum. The EGM does not require a quorum to be valid.
   There is a requirement of 1/3 co-owner votes to pass a resolution at a Second Call mtng. (Sec. 43).
   At a Second Call mtng. those issues which required a 50% vote(as per Chapter 5 Section 48 of the ACT) only require a minimum 1/3 of total building vote.
The 25 % voting requirement (Chapter 5 Section 49 of the Act) remains unchanged.

I agree with your comment but then "Hope Springs Eternal"! At least there are two weeks to drum up more support for an issue.

I,m glad you raised this particular issue.

I think that I mis- quoted the Act

If I'm reading it correctly ,then there is only one issue where the1/3 vote is available i.e

  (1) a purchase of immoveable property or an acceptance of immovable property of binding value as common property

In essence if there is no result the first time around -then a  2nd crack is available(with  a lower voting threshold )

All the other issues on the 'must have a 50% pass list ' are not granted this concession(Chapter 5 Section 48 refers)

Edited by Delight, 2012-03-18 16:34:23.

[ripley]

Just under the list of issues requiring a 50% vote, Section 48 reads
In the case where the joint owners attending a meeting does not constitute the number set forth under paragraph one, a new meeting shall be summoned within fifteen days from the date of summoning the preceded meeting and a resolution relating to the matter provided under paragraph one in this new meeting must receive the votes of not less than one third of the joint owners’ total vote.

So, (as we so often seem to ask each other!), What am I missing? Is it written elsewhere in the Act?

Edited by ripley, 2012-03-18 21:11:36.

[ripley]

I'm thinking that the Glossary is really for simple definitions of frequently used terms.

If we get into percentages required for various issues, etc. we're interpreting the Act, which isn't really our job.

So - I suggest a plain definition of "Second Call Meeting' as a mtng. called after an AGM fails to achieve a quorum, etc. etc.

We can always add references to the Sections of the Act concerning Second Calls if you think it wise.

Whaddya think?

[Delight]

ripley, on 2012-03-18 21:32:00, said:

I'm thinking that the Glossary is really for simple definitions of frequently used terms.

If we get into percentages required for various issues, etc. we're interpreting the Act, which isn't really our job.

So - I suggest a plain definition of "Second Call Meeting' as a mtng. called after an AGM fails to achieve a quorum, etc. etc.

We can always add references to the Sections of the Act concerning Second Calls if you think it wise.

Whaddya think?

I agree with your attitude.

However

Knowing what I now know the topic of 2nd meetings would  detailed be as follows:

Second Call meeting s :
1). If a general co -owner meeting (AGM of EGM fails to attract sufficient co –owners to achieve a quorum then a 2^nd meeting can be arranged . This must be within 15 days of original meetings and the quorum rules are suspended.
2)If a general co -owners meeting fails to attract   sufficient attendance to vote on  a specific  issue that requires 50%  agreement then a 2^nd meeting can be called where the winning vote on the  specific issue needs  only to comprise 1/3 of the total available  vote.The current Act only details one topic where this concession applies.

This I think is more accurate

I leave it to your discretion as to any next stage

[ripley]

How about this one?

Second Call Meeting: In the event that AGM attendance is less than the required quota of 1/4 total ownership, a second meeting must be slated for 15 days after the failed AGM.
   A Second Call Meeting does not require a quorum. The voting percentage requirements vary on some issues in a Second Call Mtg. Please refer to the Thai Condominium Acts B.E. 2522 and its B.E. 2551 amendments, Sections: #43, 48 and 49.

[Delight]

Ripley

The problem with this definition it implies that a lack of a quorum
Is the basis for all 2^nd meetings .It isn’t.
A 2^nd meeting can be called –even if the 1^st meeting had the 25% i.e. as detailed :
Chapter 5 Section 48

So maybe this will do.

2^Nd   Meetings.  A 2^nd   general  meeting can be arranged (within 15 days of the original general meeting ) , when the conditions, detailed in Sections 43 and/or  48 of Chapter 5 of the Thai Condominium Acts B.E. 2522 and its B.E. 2551 amendments, apply.

[ripley]

Well spotted! I never realized that or heard it mentioned until now. I looked up your reference (on the "samui for sale" version of the Act which, incidentally, is more reader friendly than others). I think we go w/ your definition:

Second Call Meeting: A second general meeting can be arranged within 15 days of the original general meeting, when the conditions, detailed in Sections 43 and/or 48 of Chapter 5 of the Thai Condominium Acts B.E. 2522 and its B.E. 2551 amendments apply.

• Like This
  
• Unlike

• Back to top
  
• Quote
  
• MultiQuote
  
• Report

[ripley]

Oops. One small alteration: "MUST be arranged" (instead of "CAN".

[Delight]

One more put to bed.

As an aside

The concept of a 2nd meeting –to vote on the ‘the purchase if immovable property ‘  strikes  me as a bit dodgy.
Consider a condo with 100 rooms all with equal voting rights.
10 co –owners  conspire and persuade 30 co –owners to use the proxy system –an AGM is due. The 10   have   had  plenty  of time to arrange this.
The topic ‘purchase of immovable property ‘ is on the Agenda or is raised in any other business. Either way the proposal is defeated.

The 10 do not use the proxies.

The 10 gamble that apathy will be a feature   of  the 2nd meeting.

Only the 10 show at the 2^nd meeting  and given that they hold 40% between them –the purchase is given the go –ahead.

Arguably farfetched –but theoretically possible

[ripley]

Oh, I don't think that's far-fetched at all. I can think of other ways & reasons to exploit proxy votes as I'm sure you can.

I've always thought that the proxy forms should have space - even categories offered - for the written wishes of the owners giving them. If an agenda is very specific as to proposals, candidates, etc., the giver can have control over his proxy vote. I always write in my own vote choices when I use a proxy vote.

Apart from that, tho, the scenario you suggest could easily take place amongst consenting owners to control the outcome of a meeting. Disturbing. One can only hope that the apathy which keeps people from participation would also serve to flummox those wishing to stage a coup.

Regarding proxy votes, I'm a real advocate for their use. The only problem I encounter in my ruminations on the subject is - especially in a large bldg. and with low attendance  - who is going to vote all the proxies of those absent?

But perhaps this is all fodder for another thread...

(I'll put the definition on the Glossary page.)

[ripley]

Believe me, I hate to bring this up, but it's been niggling at the back of my mind.

   re: JURISTIC PERSON MANAGER (JPM)

The definition in the glossary is based on advice/information obtained from no fewer than 4 lawyers - one source being the team of a renowned law professor in Bangkok who has had the honor of serving his Royal Majesty.

The building I live in has always had a Juristic Person Manager. (At present we are questioning the legality of the Committee Chairman to simultaneously hold the position of JPM.)

Be that as it may, I can find absolutely no reference to this position in the Thai Condo Act. This contains only the definition of "Building Manager" or "Manager of the Juristic Person".

It doesn't make sense to me to have a hired building manager perform the duties of JPM as outlined in our definition.

Anyone know anything about this? I'm wondering now how many condos have JPMs separate from Building Managers.

[Delight]

There is no restriction  on the JPM being a committee member.

Committee members and JPM have to be voted to these positions with a General meeting vote.
Committee members only require a simple majority at a legal General meeting
The JPM requires   a 25% vote to be elected (and a 25% vote to be dismissed also)

The Manager as referred to in the Act is the JPM

There is no reference to a building manager as such.
Chapter 5 Section 49/2 gives the JPM the right to delegate to another person. I assume that this other person is the building manager

Chapter 5 Section 49   A 25% vote is required to accept the detail of which duties can be delegated from the JPM to another (assume  building manager)

Chapter 5 Section 35 Details qualification requirement of JPM
Chapter 5 Section 36 The duties of the JPM
Chapter 5 Section 42/2 A JPM can call   a General meeting .  If  the committee call a meeting a  majority vote by the committee is required.

Committee members and the JPM cannot carry proxies.

[ripley]

What I meant is that there isn't a separate definition for "Manager"  and "Juristic Person Manager" in the Act - only "manager of the juristic person". The "manager of the juristic person" has the powers and responsibilities listed below and can/shall delegate them to another person (what I would term a "building manager".

This is very different from the legal advice received on the subject as I mentioned in my post above. Also, some years ago, a JPM in our building attempted to take over the powers of manager, committee, etc. quoting the Act as written. He was overruled and dismissed by an AGM.

However that may be, the definition given in the Act is different from the definition we've given in the glossary for Juristic Person Manager (JPM). It would appear the position described in the glossary doesn't exist.

Would you agree?


Section 36 The manager shall have the following powers and duties:
(1) To carry out the work according to the objectives under Section 33 or resolution of the Regulations or The Manager shall perform his duties resolution of the joint-owners General Meeting, however it shall not be contradictory to the law.
(2) In the case of necessity and urgency, the Manager shall have the power by his own initiative to carry out the business for the safety of the building as a prudent person should do to his own property.
(3) Providing security operations or taking actions in maintaining peace and order within the condominium.
(4) Acting as a representative of the condominium corporate.
(5) Arranging to have a monthly Receipt and Expenditure Account prepared and post it on the Bulletin Board to inform the joint owners within fifteen days from the end of the month and that such relevant Announcement shall be posted at least for a consecutive period of fifteen days.
(6) Suing by own self except the business by the Regulations or the resolution of the Joint Owner General Meeting in accordance with Section 49 (2) prescribing that the other person can be assigned to work on his behalf and that the person so assigned shall be present to perform duties in accordance with time set forth under the regulation.

Edited by ripley, 2012-04-19 16:18:37.

[Delight]

However that may be, the definition given in the Act is different from the definition we've given in the glossary for Juristic Person Manager (JPM). It would appear the position described in the glossary doesn't exist.

I now understand where you are coming from.

As a start could you send a post detailing the current definition of JPM .

That will be the basis for any change

[ripley]

Per the Glossary:

"J.P.M.: Juristic Person Manager. A person elected by the Co-owners at an AGM whose function is to check all official paperwork for legality and to sign required documents (Government and others) submitted to the CJP. The "hand" of the owners, if you will. This person must have some legal qualifications, be fluent in the Thai language and must have legal authority to work in Thailand. (If the building is run by a Management Company, their legal department may serve as JPM. (limited liability)".

"Manager: A Normal (Natural) or Juristic person hired to implement management tasks for the Condominium under the supervision of the Committee and the JPM."

Edited by ripley, 2012-04-20 14:27:57.

[Delight]

"J.P.M.: Juristic Person Manager. A person elected by the Co-owners at a general meeting(with a winning vote of at least 25% of total vote) whose function is to check all official paperwork for legality and to sign required documents (Government and others) submitted to the CJP. Primarily the JPM ensures that the C.J.P operates within the current Thai Law. This person must have some legal qualifications, be fluent in the Thai language and must have legal authority to work in Thailand. . The name of the JPM is registered at the land office.See Chapter 5 sections 35 and  36  of the  Condominium ACT for more detail of  the  qualification requirement, responsibilities, duties etc.of the JPM


"Building Manager: A person  hired to implement and manage  policy decisions generated by the committee i.e. to run the day to day management of the Condominium.
This Building manager reports to the JPM.


This is what I have come up with.

We could of course just quote the Act verbatim

However this way allows for the inclusion of the Building Manager as a separate role -which is only implied in the Act

Edited by Delight, 2012-04-20 19:56:59.

[ripley]

The Thai Condo Act is confusing as regards the definition of Juristic Person Manager. For instance, the word "manager" is used interchangeably to refer both to the Legal Arm of a condominium and also to the person performing routine tasks normally ascribed to a "building manager".

There is no mention in the act of a requirement that either type of "manager" be fluent in Thai, familiar with Thai law or have permission to work in the Kingdom. Yet simple logic dictates that it isn't possible to perform the jobs without meeting these minimum requirements.

The definition for Juristic Person Manager in the Glossary does not strictly conform to what is written in the act and may be inaccurate. However, it is my opinion that independent legal counsel on Thai condo law should be taken before any alteration is made as this would appear to be a complex issue.

Edited by ripley, 2012-04-30 13:26:39.

[ripley]

P.S. In case anyone is interested:
   Found a related thread on TVF "Canadian Condo Owner Claims False Arrest". Primarily concerns work permit issues for positions in condo associations but some interesting stuff here - including views and personal experience which differ from wording of the Act re: JPMs and other official positions