ripley

Thanks, Delight, for the well presented attempt to untangle the riddles in the Condominium Act!

Anyone else care to weigh in on this one?

The reference to "building manager" is my own - used (as you have used it) to describe the person who carries out the daily business of running the condominium. My complaint/confusion is that the Act does not have a separate title for this role, for which reason the lines are blurred and it's not clear to whom the various sections refer.
    Sec.35 .....In the case where the manager is a juristic person, such juristic person shall appoint an ordinary person to be the person acting for the juristic person in the capacity of a manager.
    Sec.49 (2) states that no fewer than 1/4 total co-owner votes are required to stipulate the business which the manager may assign another person to perform "on his behalf".
    This would seem to back your view that the JPM and the "building manager?" are - for the purposes of a Gen. Mtng. - an entity barred from chairing an AGM.

    The Act (Sec.35) states that "the Juristic Condominium shall have one manager who ma be an ordinary person or a juristic person."
and repeatedly refers throughout to "an ordinary person or a juristic person". Therefore, it seems logical that the term "juristic" applies both to the Condominium corporate as well as the owners. The Condominium corporate is "the juristic person", a co-owner is "a juristic person"??

   Regarding the Committee, Sec.38 states it has "monitoring control" over the condominium corporate managements. For this reason, to me, it seems clear that the Committee is privy to every action of the JPM, etc. and has something to say about it. I would disagree with your statement that the committee, condo owners, etc. are merely "customers" of the manager. The manager - both the JPM and "building" manager are employees - that is, work for - the owners.

   Still - here I go again talking about a "manager" when the term "manager" is used so indiscriminately in the Act. And that is actually the only issue I'm seeking to clarify.

Some may think that the defining of "Juristic Person Manager" is just so much nit-picking. Here's an example of just one way in which the distinction can be crucial:

   Our condo has always operated with a Juristic Person Manager (JPM) who is authorized to scan documents for legality and sign in the name of the Condominium Juristic Person (CJPM). Simultaneously we have an office or building manager who takes care of routine business under the supervision of the Committee and the JPM. (We've tried management companies to fulfill this role, but with no success.)

   Okay - The chairperson of the Committee took over the duties of the JPM when the previous JPM quit mid-year. He chaired the AGM and was subsequently voted in as the JPM at that meeting.

   The Act says that neither the "Manager" nor Spouse may chair an AGM.

   If the Act is referring to - for lack of a clearer term - the office or building Manager, no law has been broken. But if "Manager" means the JPM then the AGM would be invalid because the meeting was chaired illegally.

   Although the definition section of the Act reads that "Manager" means Juristic Person Manager, elsewhere the usage of the term manager is clearly describing an office or building manager.

   Controversial actions were taken and decisions made at this AGM which will be called to question. But no simple reading of the Thai Condo Act provides the information required to pin down whether or not the AGM was held legally.

   This is only one example of a way in which a simple definition can throw a spanner into the works!

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

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.