Flat Chat Strata Forum Strata Committees quorum Current Page

#18288
Kangaroo
Flatchatter

    I think this post got lost as I didn’t see the “awaiting moderation” message.

    I wouldn’t call it gobbledook, but in the wrong place even ordinary words like “owners” and “persons” (even “individual”) can create problems.

    Sometimes I feel sorry for lawyers (but not often).

    My own interpretation would be that Schedule 2 clause 12 (3) should be read in terms of “entitlements to vote”.

    I’d be wary of going to the CTTT to have the motion overruled. They will often resolve things in terms of “would your vote have made a difference”.

    a) If the OP had attended and voted against, the motion would have still have been carried on show of hands.

    b) If the OP and the 4th owner had attended and voted against, the show of hands would have been a tie, and the poll would have carried the motion.

    c) If there really wasn’t a quorum, the EGM would have been reconvened in 7 days, and either (a) or (b) would have happened then.

    d) And if there wasn’t a quorum at the reconvened EGM, after 30 minutes Mr 58% would have become the quorum.

    e) Or, he could have turned up to vote for his 1st unit, and brought his wife with a written proxy to vote for the 2nd unit.

    Same result each time.

    I think half this story is missing.

    1) Why didn’t sancataldo (OP) and the 4th owner go to the EGM?

    2) If the missing 42% of UEs is split half-half (assumption) between the OP and 4th owner, and the OP received a bill for $14,000 then the total special levy must be around $66,000.

    3) What work worth $66,000 arose so “suddenly” in a 4-lot scheme?

    4) Did the mandatory 10-year plan include this item?

    5) What time period was allowed between the EGM resolution and the due date for payment?

    6) What time period elapsed between the due date and the letter of demand?

    7) Is Mr 58% the developer (original owner) of the scheme?

    8) If so, see Schedule 2 clause 18 (3).

    Also, Schedule 2 clause 18 (1) might shed some light on the interpretation of quorum raised by the OP.