Supreme Court Judgement of March 24, 2011.
SECOND .- The first ground of appeal is based on breach Article 11.4 of the Condominium Property Act and jurisprudence of the Supreme Court contained in the Judgments of 19 December 1990, March 23, 1991 and June 11, 1994, upon the consent of the owners of the scheme condo in order to carry out works that affect private elements. The plea must be rejected. The rulings cited no similar factual circumstances reflected the determined by the ruling that is used, which turns out to be one of the essential prerequisites for the estimation of an appeal based on the existence of interest on appeal. They examined the express consent as a prerequisite for adopting an agreement by the community ownership, involving the assignment or removal of an exclusive element. In this case, you must indicate the Provincial Court has concluded that the plaintiff consented expressly, in the same time it was unanimously agreed to the installation of the elevator, and fully accredited this because it believes that that time the owners were already aware, and indeed the plaintiff, an architect by profession, that this facility could only be viable under two possibilities and both assumed the involvement of private elements. It therefore believes that conduct is contrary to the doctrine of estoppel from challenging the subsequent agreement location of the lift, founded only in the opinion of the Provincial Court in the fact that it has adopted the alternative to the beloved by the plaintiff. In short, the appellate interest claimed to be nonexistent.
More » 
0 comments:
Post a Comment