Legal Measures for the Management of Condominium Juristic Persons.

Abstract

This research consists purposes were 1. to study the background, the meaning, the management and the concepts concerning condominiums 2. by studying the legal measures relating to the management of condominium juristic persons under Thai law as compared to foreign laws, such as those of France, Singapore, and Japan 3. to analyze problems arising from measures of the law, as relating to the management of condominium juristic persons under Thai law and 4. seeking solutions to the problems arising from condominium juristic person management, as well as proposing the appropriate amendments to the Condominium Act B.E. 2522 (A.D. 1979), in addition to offering appropriate recommendations. is qualitative research by conducting research studies from various related documents such as these included books, textbooks, documents, articles, research reports, law codes, court judgments, theses, research reports, and electronic media data, and internet research, and the provisions of the relevant laws. and  then  use  the  information  gathered  from  various  related documents for content analysis. The results of the study found that: 1) Thailand has adopted France's condominium law as a guideline in drafting of the Condominium Act B.E. 2522 (A.D. 1979), in which the principle of ownership in the condominium is divided into private ownership and co-ownership in common property 2)  the foreign condominium laws scrutinized comprise those of France, Singapore and Japan, they are constantly updated by incorporating technology into management 3) The unfair collection of communal fees, a well as the enforced payment of communal fees and the condominium juristic person’s funds, has preferential rights that do not cover the expenses under Section 40. Also, if the Manager ignores and does not register the preferential rights for the condominium before auctioning incurring damages, there are no provisions for penalization. Instances of late communal fees payment running up an exorbitant amount making the co-owners refusing to pay the communal fees, and accordingly the surcharges having become a subsequent chronic problem; as such there are no provisions offering incentives to pay the communal fees within the deadline. The co-owners did not attend the meeting, resulting in a quorum being insufficient and the number of votes of the co-owners was insufficient for a resolution  and 4) it is expedient to revise the law in the case of the co-owner’s overdue payment under Section 40, so as the juristic condominium shall have the same privileges as under Section 18 and reducing the rate of fines; penalties for juristic managers in case of neglect of duties; and incorporating the use of technology in co-owners meetings as well as in voting on resolutions.