In co-ownership, it is the bare owners who vote and it is irrelevant that the usufruct of their lots all belong to the same person.
This is the response provided by the Court of Cassation on May 25, a co-owner who raised the abuse of majority of an SCIusufructuary of many lots.
It is not possible to consider that an SCI would be a majority co-owner, said the Court, on the pretext that all its members would be of the same family, linked by the same interest, and that they would have left it the usufruct of their property because usufructuaries, managers, apartment users or rent recipients do not vote.
And to the extent that bare owners are different people, it cannot be considered that they would be linked by a common interest. The question of the cumulative importance of their batches therefore does not arise.
A minority co-owner challenged a general meeting decision because it benefited the tenants of a family SCI which manages the majority of the lots. In reality, argued this minority, the family that applies joint management through the SCI is a majority co-owner whose voting rights must be reduced. The law provides that if a co-owner holds an absolute majority, his number of votes must be reduced to the sum of the votes of the others so that he cannot impose his wishes on everyone.
Invest in real estate from €1,000. OUR rankings of the best SCPIs
But that the SCI is family, usufructuary of the lots and manager of the tenants who were to benefit from the decision voted, the owners of the lots that it manages are different people, answered the judges, since the father, manager of the SCI, dismembered the property and distributed the bare ownership of the lots among his children. They are the only ones who have the right to vote and none of them has a majority.