Spelling suggestions: "subject:"condominiums -- daw anda legislation"" "subject:"condominiums -- daw ando legislation""
1 |
A uniform condominium statute for China based on a comparative study of the South African Sectional Titles Act and American Uniform Common Interest Ownership ActChen, Lei 12 1900 (has links)
Thesis (LLD (Private Law))--Stellenbosch University, 2008. / The objective of this study is to examine the significance of introducing and
strengthening apartment ownership in China. The research aims to explore and
scrutinize various apartment ownership options from selected jurisdictions in order to
provide a framework for similar legislation in China. Hence, the research seeks to
provide a legislative framework for a uniform condominium statute by closely
examining the South African Sectional Titles Act and the American Uniform Common
Interest Ownership Act. This comparative study will help to establish a uniform
condominium statute suitable to the Chinese national character and compatible with
the pace of the country’s economic development.
The thesis is organized into seven chapters. The first chapter explains the research
topic, theoretical basis of the thesis, and research methodology. Moreover, in this
chapter the historical background and status quo of Chinese condominium institution
are also illustrated.
Following this introduction, Chapter Two explores the theoretical structure of
condominium ownership. It depicts the legislative innovation arising from its sui
generis features and explains the objects of condominium ownership on the basis of
its unique definition.
In Chapter Three, a wide spectrum of provisions is identified pertaining to the
creation of condominium in China with reference to South African and American acts.
Specifically, it observes the requirements for land intended for subdivision and the
buildings that comprise a condominium project. It is highlighted that a
condominium’s constitutive document is unregulated in China. Moreover, the
characteristic Chinese land registration procedure is also presented.
Chapter Four demonstrates the significance of the participation quota and analyzes
the advantages and disadvantages of different participation quota calculating methods.
Chapter Five emphasizes that inherent in the condominium living is the interdependence of interests among unit owners. Consequently, this chapter focuses
on condominium owners’ use and enjoyment of their apartments and the common
property.
Chapter Six elaborates on condominium management. This chapter examines the
management body, the general meeting, the executive council and the managing agent.
It concludes that having a well-structured management body is essential since a
condominium community cannot function efficiently without a management
association to represent all of the owners and to handle day-to-day operations.
The last chapter concludes that China needs to enact a uniform condominium to
protect private interests within the condominium context.
|
2 |
Zur Frage, inwieweit der südafrikanische Sectional Titles Act aus der neu verabschiedeten WEG-Novelle in Deutschland Nutzen ziehen kannScholze, Gregor 03 1900 (has links)
Thesis (LLM (Private Law))--University of Stellenbosch, 2010. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The most important innovations of the revised German Wohnunungseigentumsgesetz which
came into force on 1 July of 2007, concern the possiblity to amend parts of the constitution of
the scheme (Gemeinschaftsordnung) by majority instead of unanimous resolution; the
extension of the decision-making competence of sectional owners; the easier and more
appropriate distinction between maintenance of and luxurious and non-luxurious
improvements to the common property; the recognition that the body corporate has legal
capacity to act in certain circumstances; the increase in the functions and powers of the
professional manager (Verwalter); and the replacement of the procedure for non-contentious
matters for the settlement of disputes by the ordinary civil court procedure. These
predominantly valuable innovations raise the question in how far South African law could
benefit from these amendments, and whether they could be used as a model for solving
some of the unsatisfactory aspects of the South African sectional title law.
The revised Wohnungseigentumsgesetz now allows apartment owners to amend more
provisions of the constitution by majority resolution. The harsh unanimity principle is in many
contexts replaced by the majority principle and individual apartment owners are allowed to
request an amendment of certain provisions of the constitution for important reasons. The
Sectional Titles Act and the model management and conduct rules regulate the relationship
between sectional owners in South Africa. Both the developer and the body corporate have
the authority to supplement or amend the existing model rules by special rules. However, in
comparison with the revised Wohnungseigentumsgesetz the management and conduct rules
can only be amended by a unanimous or special resolution for management and conduct
rules respectively and an individual owner is not allowed to request an amendment of a
model rule on account of the unfair consequences suffered by him or her.
An important advantage of the revised Wohnungseigentumsgesetz in comparison with
section 32(4) of the Sectional Titles Act is furthermore that no written consent is required
from the sectional owner who is adversely affected by an amendment of certain aspects of
the participation quota. This requirement causes many problems. First, the circumstances in
which an owner can be considered adversely affected have not been judicially determined.
Second, the South African requirement is out of step with modern conditions, which witness
the number of larger schemes increasing, because it allows one owner to block objectively
necessary resolutions of the body corporate. The provision requiring the written consent of
the adversely affected owner should therfore be repealed.
The same applies to the general requirements for carrying out maintenance of and
improvements to the common property. On closer analysis it becomes clear that the
management rules contain no criteria to distinguish between maintenance and improvement
measures or between luxurious and non-luxurious improvements. In final analysis these
distinctions seem to depend on subjective rather than on objective criteria. By contrast the
revised Wohnungseigentumsgesetz contains a clear objective distinction between the four
categories of improvements to the common property. / GERMAN ABSTRACT: Seit dem 1. Juli 2007 gilt in Deutschland ein novelliertes Wohnungseigentumsgesetz. Die
wichtigsten Neuerungen betreffen die Ermöglichung von Änderungen der Gemeinschaftsordnung
nicht nur durch einstimmigen Beschluss der Wohnungseigentümer, die Erweiterung
der Beschlusskompetenzen der Wohnungseigentümer, die Erleichterung der Durchführung
baulicher Maßnahmen, die Gestaltung der Teilrechtsfähigkeit der Eigentümergemeinschaft
und die Festlegung der erweiterten Rechte und Pflichten des Verwalters sowie die
Überleitung des Verfahrens der freiwilligen Gerichtsbarkeit in die Zivilprozessordnung. Die
überwiegende Zahl der grundsätzlich zu begrüßenden Neuregelungen gibt auch für das
südafrikanische Recht wertvolle Denkanstöße zu der Frage, ob eine Novellierung des
Sectional Titles Act im Sinne der Neuregelungen des WEG eine Möglichkeit wäre,
bestehende „Ungereimtheiten“ und Probleme zwischen den Wohnungseigentümern und im
Wohnungseigentumskomplex in Südafrika besser lösen zu können.
Im neuen novellierten WEG sind mehr als bislang Mehrheitsentscheidungen der
Wohnungseigentümer zulässig. Statt des starren Einstimmigkeitsprinzips gilt nun oftmals das
Mehrheitsprinzip. Zudem ist es auch dem einzelnen Wohnungseigentümer möglich, eine
Änderung einer Vereinbarung zu verlangen, sofern ein Festhalten an einer geltenden
Regelung aus schwerwiegenden Gründen unter Berücksichtigung aller Umstände des
Einzelfalles, unbillig erscheint. Gesetzliche Regelungen, welche das Gemeinschaftsverhältnis
in Südafrika ordnen, sind im Sectional Titles Act selbst und in den management und
conduct rules der Annexure 8 und 9 des Sectional Titles Act enthalten. Zudem hat sowohl
der developer als auch die Wohnungseigentümergemeinschaft (body corporate) die
Befugnis, die Rechte, Pflichten und Nutzungsrechte der Wohnungseigentümer in
sogenannten „special rules“ selbst festzulegen. Im Vergleich zu den Regelungen des
novellierten WEG ist es für Wohnungseigentümer in Südafrika jedoch schwerer, eine
Änderung solcher Regelungen herbeizuführen. Wollen die Wohnungseigentümer von den
Regelungen der management oder conduct Rules abweichen, können sie dies bezüglich der
management rules nur durch einheitlichen Beschluss (resolution) und hinsichtlich der
conduct rules mittels eines Beschlusses mit 75%er Mehrheit (special resolution). Ein
individueller Anspruch des einzelnen Wohnungseigentümers auf Änderung, Ergänzung oder
Ersetzung der rules bei Unbilligkeit besteht nicht.
Ein gewichtiger Vorteil der Neuregelung des § 16 Abs. 3 WEG im Vergleich zu Artikel 32(4)
des Sectional Titles Act ist zudem, dass es in Deutschland keiner schriftlichen Zustimmung
des von der Entscheidung negativ betroffenen Wohnungseigentümers bedarf. Eine
Änderung der participation quota hinsichtlich des Kostenverteilungsschlüssels ist nur
möglich, wenn ein von der Entscheidung negativ betroffener Wohnungseigentümer seine
schriftliche Zustimmung erteilt. Wann eine solche negative Betroffenheit („adversely
affected“) letztlich vorliegt, ist zum einen nicht abschließend geklärt. Zum anderen ist gerade
unter der Prämisse immer größerer werdender sectional titles schemes nicht mehr
zeitgemäß, einem einzelnen Wohnungseigentümer die Möglichkeit zu geben, objektiv
notwendige Entscheidungen der body corporate zu blockieren. Das Erfordernis der
Zustimmungsbedürftigkeit eines negativ betroffenen Wohnungseigentümers sollte daher
aufgegeben werden. Gleiches gilt für die generelle Zulässigkeit von baulichen Veränderungen.
Bei genauerer Analyse des südafrikanischen Rechts wird zudem klar, dass in den
Management Rules nicht definiert ist, was unter Verbesserungen, d.h. unter „improvements
to the common property“ zu verstehen ist oder wie im Einzelfall zwischen luxuriösen und
nicht-luxuriösen Aufwendungen zu unterscheiden ist, da es letztlich von der subjektiven
Betrachtungsweise Einzelner abhängt. Das novellierte WEG enthält im Vergleich dazu eine
klarere objektive Begriffsabgrenzung der vier Kategorien baulicher Maßnahmen. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Die belangrikste veranderings aangebring deur die wysiging van die Duitse
Wohnunungseigentumsgesetz wat op 1Julie 2007 in werking getree het, is die volgende: die
wysiging van die reëls van die skema (Gemeinschaftsordnung) deur middel van ‘n
meerderheidsbesluit in plaas van ‘n eenparige besluit; die uitbreiding van die
besluitnemingsbevoegdhede van deeleienaars, die helder en meer gepaste vereistes vir die
aanbring van verbeterings aan die gemeenskaplike eiendom, die erkenning van die
regsbevoegdheid van die regspersoon in sekere gevalle, die uitbreiding van die
bevoegdhede van die professionele bestuurder en die vervanging van die informele
geskilbeslegtingsprosedure deur die gewone hofprosedure. Hierdie veranderinge laat die
vraag ontstaan in hoeverre die Suid-Afrikaanse reg voordeel kan trek uit hierdie wysigings en
in hoeverre die veranderings as model kan dien vir wysiging van onbevredigende aspekte
van die Wet op Deeltitels.
Die gewysigde Wohnunungseigentumsgesetz laat deeleienaars tans toe om meer bepalings
van die model reëls deur meerderheidsbesluit te verander. Die streng eenparigheidsbeginsel
word in meerdere verbande deur die meerderheidsbeginsel vervang en deeleienaars word in
sekere gevalle selfs toegelaat om aansoek te doen vir die wysiging van sommige bepalings
op grond van ‘n geldige rede. Die Wet op Deeltitels en die model bestuurs- en gedragsreëls
reguleer die regsverhouding tussen deeleienaars. In teenstelling met die gewysidge Duitse
wet kan die die regspersoon die bestuursreëls slegs deur middel van ‘n eenparige besluit en
die gedragsreëls deur middel van ‘n spesiale besluit verander en ‘n deeleienaar word nie
toegelaat om ‘n verandering van die reëls aan te vra op grond van onregverdige benadeling
nie.
‘n Belangrike voordeel van die gewysigde Duitse wet in vergelyking met artikel 32(4) van die
Wet op Deeltitels is verder dat die skriftelike toestemming van ‘n deeleienaar wat deur die
wysiging van sekere aspekte van die deelnemingkwota benadeel word, nie verkry hoef te
word nie. Dit is ‘n groot verbetering. Eerstens is dit moeilik om te bepaal in watter
omstandighede ‘n deeleienaar se regte deur die wysiging van die deelnemingskwota
benadeel word. Tweedens is die Suid-Afrikaanse bepaling uit pas met moderne
ontwikkelings waar ‘n deeleienaar in groot deeltitleontwikkelings toegelaat word om objektief
redelike besluite van die regspersoon te blokkeer. Hierdie bepaling van die Wet op Deeltitels
moet dus herroep word.
Dieselfde geld vir die vereistes met betrekking tot die onderhoud van en verbeterings aan
die gemeenskaplike eiendom in die Suid-Afrikaanse wetgewing. Op die keper beskou bevat
die bestuursreëls geen geskikte riglyne om tussen die onderhoud van, en luukse en nieluukse
verbeterings aan die gemeenskaplike eiendom te onderskei nie. Die onderskeiding
berus oënskynlik op subjektiewe eerder as objektiewe oorwegings. Daarenteen bevat die
gewysigde Duitse Wet helder, objektiewe kriteria om onderhoud en vier soorte verbeterings
aan die gemeenskaplike eiendom te onderskei.
|
3 |
Versekering van deeltitelskemas13 August 2015 (has links)
LL.M. / Please refer to full text to view abstract
|
4 |
The relevance of the South African sectional titles law in interpretation and application of the sectional titles legislation of Botswana : an analysis of provisions pertaining to establishment of schemesSerumula, Doreen Lame 03 1900 (has links)
Thesis (LLM )-University of Stellenbosch, 2004. / 150 leaves printed on single pages, preliminary pages i-xi and numbered pages 1-138. Includes bibliography. / Digitized at 600 dpi grayscale to pdf format (OCR), using a Bizhub 250 Konica Minolta Scanner. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The concept of sectional ownership has been unknown in the Botswana common law
because of the maxim superficies solo cedit, which does not recognize separate ownership
of apartments in a building. The law must always serve the felt and real needs of the times,
and in order to give effect to those needs, the Botswana Sectional Titles Act was enacted in
1999. It is based on the South African Sectional Titles Act of 1986, as amended, which
repealed the 1971 Act.
In this thesis, a comparative analysis of the South African and Botswana sectional titles law
is made to determine whether and, if so, how the existing position in the South African
sectional titles law could aid interpretation and application of the sectional titles legislation
of Botswana, specifically pertaining to aspects of establishment of sectional title schemes.
The main focus is on the legislative provisions of both jurisdictions. However, South
African case law is also considered.
Landownership and sectional titles is discussed, to determine whether sectional ownership
is genuine ownership. This entails a discussion on the publicity principle, which in the case
of land is normally achieved by means of registration in the Deeds Registries. The thesis
analyses the Botswana and South African statutes on the requirements and procedures
involved in the establishment of sectional title schemes to bring to light any shortcomings
that may exist in either of the two statutes. An understanding of the shortcomings of the
South African statute is relevant to the interpretation and application of the Botswana
statute. An examination of the procedural aspects of establishment of a sectional title
scheme, as well as the roles of the parties involved in the establishment thereof is
undertaken, so as to identify consequences that may ensue if they fail to comply with the
requirements of either of the statutes. Consequently, a comparative analysis on the effect of
registration of the sectional plan and opening of the sectional title register is made.
Although it is not suggested that the Botswana Act should be completely similar to the
South African Act, as Botswana may have its own peculiar circumstances, suggestions as to
the amendment of the Botswana statute are made. Amendments would make the Botswana
Act even more flexible, and would open up the possibilities of development to achieve greater access to land. Further more improvements to the Act will have to be made, some
before its implementation, and some after a period of application of the Act, as real
practical problems become apparent. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Die konsep van deeltitel was tot dusver in Botswana se gemenereg onbekend weens die
maxim superficies solo cedit, wat nie aparte eienaarskap van woonstelle in 'n gebou erken
nie. Die wet moet altyd die werklike behoeftes van die tyd dien, en om te voldoen aan
daardie behoeftes is die Botswana Wet op Deeltitels in 1999 uitgevaardig. Dit is gebaseer op
die Suid-Afrikaanse Wet op Deeltitels van 1986, soos gewysig, wat die 1971 Wet herroep
het.
In hierdie tesis word 'n vergelykende studie gedoen van die Suid-Afrikaanse Wet op
Deeltitels en die gelyknamige Wet in Botswana om te bepaal of, en indien wel, hoe die
bestaande posisie in die Suid-Afrikaanse Wet op Deeltitels kan help met die interpretasie en
toepassing van die deeltitel wetgewing van Botswana, veral waar dit gaan oor die vestiging
van deeltitelskemas. Die tesis fokus op die wetgewende bepalings in albei lande, maar
konsentreer op probleemareas in die nuwe Deeltitel wet van Botswana.
Grondeienaarskap en deeltitels word bespreek om te bepaal of deeltiteleienaarskap werklike
eienaarskap is. Dit behels 'n bespreking van die publisiteitsbeginsel, waaraan gewoonlik, in
die geval van grond, voldoen word deur registrasie in die Akteregister. Die tesis ontleed die
Suid-Afrikaanse statuut en die statuut van Botswana wat gaan oor die vereistes en
prosedures betrokke by die vestiging van deeltitelskemas en enige tekortkominge wat
bestaan in enige van die twee statute. Dit is belangrik om die tekortkominge van die Suid-Afrikaanse
statuut te begryp, as die statuut van Botswana geinterpreteer en toegepas moet
word. Die prosedures wat gevolg word in die vestiging van 'n deeltitelskema, asook die
rolle van die verskillende partye betrokke, word bespreek sodat die gevolge as daar nie aan
die vereistes van die statuut voldoen word nie, identifiseer kan word. Gevolglik word 'n
vergelykende ontleding gedoen van die effek van registrasie van die deeltitelplan en die
opening van die deeltitelregister. Die slothoofstuk bevat aanbevelings vir verdere
navorsing.
Alhoewel daar nie voorgestel word dat die wet in Botswana identies aan die Suid-Afrikaanse
wet moet wees nie, (Botswana het te make met ander omstandighede) word
voorstelle aan die hand gedoen vir die wysiging van die wet in Botswana. Hierdie wysigings sal die wet meer buigsaam maak en daar sal meer moontlikhede wees vir
ontwikkeling wat groter toegang tot grond sal bewerkstellig. Verder sal daar verbeterings
aan die wet aangebring moet word nadat dit eers in werking getree het en die werklike
probleme kop uitsteek.
|
5 |
Constitutionality of the rules governing sectional title schemesvan der Merwe, Zerlinda 12 1900 (has links)
Thesis (LLM (Public Law))--University of Stellenbosch, 2010. / Bibliography / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Various types of rules govern many areas of life in a sectional title scheme. The
Sectional Titles Act 95 of 1986 prescribes model management and conduct rules in
its regulations. Other non-prescribed rules are adopted by either the developers
initially or later by the trustees of the body corporate. These rules provide for the
control, management, administration, use and enjoyment of the sections and the
common property in the scheme. Sectional owners and other occupiers have the
entitlements of use and enjoyment of their individual sections and their share in the
common property of the sectional title scheme, in proportion to their participation
quota. These entitlements are restricted by the rules in operation within the scheme.
Although these rules limit the entitlements of sectional owners and other occupiers in
the interest of the sectional title community, they may not be unreasonable in their
application and effect. In some instances, the application of the rules might exceed
the bounds of reasonableness and result in unfair discrimination, arbitrary
deprivation, unfair administrative action or restrictions on access to courts for dispute
resolution. If certain rules are unreasonable in their application, based on one or
more of the abovementioned grounds, the court must interpret the potentially
impermissible rules and if the court cannot avoid a declaration of invalidity by
implementing a constitutional remedy such as reading-up, reading-down, reading-in
or severance, these impermissible rules will need to be substituted, amended or
repealed and replaced because they are potentially unconstitutional and invalid.
After a statutory and constitutional enquiry into the nature, scope, application,
operation and effect of the rules governing sectional title schemes, it can be
concluded that the various types of rules governing sectional title schemes restrict
and limit sectional owners’ and occupiers’ entitlements of use and enjoyment of their
individual sections and share in the common property. However, after being tested
against section 25 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996 and other
non-property rights entrenched in the Bill of Rights, to determine if the rules are
reasonable in their application and constitutionally permissible, it can be seen that
the application of the rules do not necessarily amount to arbitrary deprivations of property and that they can be justified in terms of the Constitution because there is
sufficient reasons for the particular regulations and they are procedurally fair.
The various different types of rules governing sectional title schemes serve as
reasonable regulations in as far as they contribute to a harmonious relationship
between the trustees of the body corporate and the sectional owners and occupiers
as members of the body corporate as well as between the members of the body
corporate inter se. The rules serve an important function in this regard. Therefore,
they are considered reasonable and constitutionally valid in as far as they do not
enforce excessive regulation and as long as they are equally applicable and do not
unfairly differentiate in their application. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Verskeie tipes reëls reguleer alledaagse aangeleenthede in ‘n deeltitelskema. Die
Wet op Deeltitels 95 van 1986 maak voorsiening vir voorgeskrewe bestuurs- en
gedragsreëls in die regulasies. Die ontwikkelaars of die trustees van die regspersoon
kan aanvanklik met die stigting van die skema of op ‘n latere stadium addisionele
reëls byvoeg wat nie alreeds deur die Wet voorgeskryf is nie. Die reëls maak
voorsiening vir die beheer, bestuur, administrasie, gebruik en genot van die eenheid
en die gemeenskaplike eiendom in die skema. Die deeleienaars van deeltitelskemas
en ander okkupeerders van die skema is geregtig om hulle individuele eenhede
sowel as die gemeenskaplike eiendom, in ooreenstemming met hulle
deelnemingskwota, te gebruik en geniet; en dit vorm deel van hul
inhoudsbevoegdhede.
Hierdie inhoudsbevoegdhede word beperk deur die skema se reëls. Afgesien
daarvan dat die reëls die deeleienaar en ander okkupeerders se
inhoudsbevoegdhede beperk in die belang van die deeltitelgemeenskap, mag die
reëls nie onredelik wees in die toepassing daarvan nie. In sommige gevalle kan die
toepassing van die reëls die perke van redelikheid oorskry en neerkom op
ongeregverdigde diskriminasie, arbitrêre ontneming, ongeregverdigde
administratiewe handeling of ‘n beperking plaas op toegang tot die howe met die oog
op dispuutoplossing. Indien daar bevind word dat sekere reëls onredelik is in die
toepassing daarvan op grond van een of meer van die voorafgemelde gronde, moet
die hof artikel 39 van die Grondwet volg en die reël interpreteer om ‘n deklarasie van
ongeldigheid te vermy. As die hof dit nie kan vermy deur middel van
konstitutusionele remedies soos “op-lesing”, “af-lesing”, “afskeiding” of “in-lesing”
nie, sal die reëls gewysig of geskrap en vervang moet word, anders sal die reël
ongrondwetlik wees en ongeldig verklaar word.
Na afloop van ‘n statutêre en konstitusionele ondersoek ten opsigte van die aard,
omvang, toepassing, werking en effek van die reëls wat deeltitelskemas reguleer
word daar bevind dat die verskeie tipes reëls wat ‘n deeltitelskema reguleer ‘n
beperking plaas op die inhousdbevoegdhede van deeltiteleienaars en ander okkupeerders wat betref die reg om die eenheid sowel as die gemeenskaplike
eiendom te gebruik en geniet. Ten einde te bepaal of die reëls redelik in die
toepassing daarvan sowel as grondwetlik toelaatbaar is, word dit getoets in terme
van artikel 25 van die Grondwet van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika 1996 en ander
regte in die Handves van Regte. Daar word bevind dat die toepassing van die reëls
nie noodwendig ‘n arbitrêre ontneming van eiendom is nie en dat dit geregverdig kan
word in terme van die Grondwet omdat daar voldoende redes vir die spesifieke
regulasies is en omdat dat hulle prosedureel billik is.
Die verskeie tipes reëls wat ‘n deeltitelskema reguleer dien as redelike regulasies
sover dit bydra tot ‘n harmonieuse verhouding tussen die trustees van die
regspersoon, die deeltiteleienaars en die okkupeerders as lede van die regspersoon
sowel as tussen die lede van die regspersoon inter se. Die reëls het ‘n belangrike
funksie in hierdie verband. Die reëls word geag redelik en grondwetlik geldig te wees
sover dit nie buitensporige regulasies afdwing nie, gelyk toegepas word en daar nie
ongeregverdig gedifferensieer word in die toepassing daarvan nie.
|
6 |
論現代建築物區分所有權的結構及相關問題 = On the structure of the modern building's differentiation droit and related problems熊壯 January 2009 (has links)
University of Macau / Faculty of Law
|
7 |
A critical analysis of the financial and social obligations imposed on sectional owners in sectional title schemes, as well as their enforcementBooysen, Juann 04 1900 (has links)
Thesis (LLD)--Stellenbosch University, 2012 / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Over the years sectional ownership satisfied the psychological need of many South
Africans to acquire home-ownership and it is currently estimated that there are more
than 780 000 sectional title units throughout South Africa. The concept of sectional
ownership consists of three elements, namely individual ownership of a section
(residential or commercial); joint ownership of the common parts of the sectional title
scheme and membership of the body corporate which governs the sectional title
community. Sectional ownership is therefore a unique statutory institution with its
own characteristics.
An imperative of every sectional title scheme is to strive for financial stability,
happiness and harmony in an intensified, diverse community where the objects of
ownership, the individual units, are physically interdependent. The Sectional Titles
Act 95 of 1986, as amended, therefore imposes numerous financial and social
obligations on sectional owners. These obligations require each owner to give up a
certain degree of freedom that he might otherwise enjoy in separate, privately owned
property. Ultimately the success of a sectional title scheme will depend upon the
necessary co-operation and support of its members for compliance with these
obligations. Since non-compliance can destroy the financial stability and social
harmony in a sectional title scheme, effective procedures for the enforcement of
these financial and social obligations are essential. Accordingly, effective sanctions
are a sine qua non for a financially viable and socially successful sectional title
scheme.
This thesis provides a critical analysis of the various financial and social obligations
that are imposed on sectional owners, as well as the measures available for their
enforcement. It will become evident that the sanctions in the South African sectional
title legislation for non-compliance with these obligations are conspicuously few and
far between. It is generally accepted that the Sectional Titles Act 95 of 1986 does
not have sharp enough „teeth‟ to deal effectively with the non-compliance of these
obligations. Consequently, the thesis will also focus on sanctions that are used in
foreign jurisdictions to enforce sectional owners‟ financial and social obligations, with the aim to identify sanctions that may be adopted in the South African context to
render the enforcement of these obligations more efficient and effective. In
conclusion it will be recommended that the only manner in which financial stability
and social harmony can be restored in a troubled sectional title scheme is to
introduce legislation which allows the body corporate as a last resort to exclude a
persistent offender who makes it impossible for the other sectional owners to share
the sectional owners‟ community with him or her temporarily from this community. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Met die verloop van tyd sedert die eerste deeltitelwetgewing in 1971 in Suid Afrika
ingevoer is, het deeleiendom die droom van menige Suid-Afrikaners verwesenlik om
eiendomsreg van „n eie woning te verkry. Huidige statistieke dui daarop dat daar
meer as 780 000 deeltiteleenhede in Suid Afrika is. Drie elemente word in die begrip
„deeleiendom‟ saamgevat, naamlik individuele eiendomsreg van „n deel (residensiëel
of kommersiëel), mede-eindomsreg van die gemeenskaplike gedeeltes van „n skema
en lidmaatskap van „n regspersoon. Deeleiendom is dus „n unieke statutêre
instelling met sy eie ongewone karaktertrekke.
Die belangrikste doelwit van elke deeltitelskema is om finansiële stabiliteit, geluk en
harmonie in „n geϊntensifeerde, diverse gemeenskap waar individuele
eiendomseenhede, fisies interafhanklik is, te bewerkstellig. Die Wet op Deeltitels 95
van 1986, soos gewysig, onderwerp deeleienaars daarom aan verskeie finansiële en
sosiale verpligtinge wat meebring dat elke deeleienaar „n sekere mate van vryheid
moet prys gee wat hy andersins sou geniet het as hy eienaar was van „n huis op „n
private erf. Die uiteindelike sukses van „n deeltitelskema is grotendeels afhanklik
van die samewerking en ondersteuning van sy lede wat betref die nakoming van
hierdie verpligtinge. Omdat nie-nakoming die finansiële stabiliteit en sosiale
harmonie kan versteur word doeltreffende maatreëls vereis vir die afdwinging van
hierdie finansiële en sosiale verpligtinge. „n Deeltitelskema kan slegs met sukses
bestuur word indien op doeltreffende sanksies gesteun kan word.
Hierdie tesis fokus op „n kritiese analise van die verskeie finansiële en sosiale
verpligtinge waaraan deeleienaars onderhewig is, en die maatreëls wat aangewend
kan word om hierdie verpligtinge af te dwing. Daar sal aangetoon word dat die
sanksies in die Suid-Afrikaanse deeltitelwetgewing vir die nie-nakoming van hierdie
verpligtinge gans te min, en boonop uiters ondoeltreffend is. Daarom word
algemeen aanvaar dat die „tande‟ van die Wet op Deeltitels 95 van 1986 nie skerp
genoeg is om die nie-nakoming van hierdie verpligtinge doeltreffend te straf nie.
Gevolglik sal die tesis ook fokus op sanksies wat in buitelandse regstelsels
aangewend word om die finansiële en sosiale verpligtinge van deeleienaars af te dwing. Die oogmerk hiermee is om buitelandse sanksies te identifiseer wat met vrug
in die Suid-Afrikaanse konteks aangewend kan word ten einde die nie-nakoming van
hierdie verpligtinge doeltreffend hok te slaan. Ter afsluiting sal voorgestel word dat
finansiële stabiliteit en sosiale harmonie in „n erg ontwrigte deeltitelskema slegs
herstel kan word indien wetgewing aangeneem word wat die regspersoon toelaat om
„n deeleienaar wat ondanks waarskuwings dit vir mede-deeleienaars onmoontlik
maak om saam met hom of haar in dieselfde deeleiendomsgemeenskap te leef
tydelik van die skema te verwyder.
|
Page generated in 0.1209 seconds