What should I do if the owner objects to the installation of an elevator during the negotiation, but wants to use it after it is installed?
2024-08-15
한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina
[Case] A 9-story residential building in a community in Guangzhou, Guangdong, has no elevator, which makes it inconvenient for the owners to go up and down the stairs. The owners of the building organized a discussion to install an elevator. During the discussion, 32 of the 44 owners agreed. Because they could not reach a consensus, the owners finally decided that the owners who agreed to install the elevator would pay for the installation and use it, and other owners would not pay and would not be allowed to use the elevator after it was installed. Guo, an owner living on the 3rd floor, did not participate in the investment because he objected to the installation of the elevator.
After the elevator was put into use, Guo changed his mind and proposed to use the elevator after paying the corresponding fundraising amount. However, the 32 owners who had previously invested believed that Guo had objected to the installation of the elevator in the early stage, which delayed the installation of the elevator for more than a year, and opposed his use of the elevator.
Guo filed a lawsuit with the People's Court, requesting that he have the same rights and obligations as the 32 owners to the newly built elevator after paying 10,077 yuan according to the previous elevator installation financing plan. In the end, the court ruled that after Guo paid the elevator financing fee, the representative of the residential owners would provide Guo with an elevator card for him to use.
[Explanation] The court held that the elevator in question was a common part of the building in terms of usage attributes, and Guo and other owners had the right to use and jointly manage the elevator. Guo's use of the elevator did not fall within the scope of matters that should be jointly decided by the owners as stipulated in relevant laws and judicial interpretations, nor would it cause damage to the legal rights of other owners to use the elevator, so the consent of the majority of owners was not required. According to the principle of fairness, the use of the elevator should be based on the payment of the fundraising funds, so the court ruled that Guo could use the elevator after paying the fundraising funds for the installation of the additional elevator.
The judge pointed out that the legal and emotional aspects of installing an elevator are complicated, and neighbors should be more understanding and tolerant, adhere to the principles of voluntary equality, friendly consultation, and fairness in conducting consultations, and jointly create a harmonious and comfortable living environment. Guo is older and does have an objective need to use the elevator. His objections during the discussion on the installation of the elevator are within the scope of normal expression of opinions. If other owners refuse to allow him to use the elevator on this basis, it is not in line with the socialist core values of honesty and friendliness. If other owners believe that Guo's behavior of obstructing the installation of the elevator has caused them losses, they can claim their rights in another case, but they cannot refuse Guo from using the elevator after paying the additional funds.
(Case source: Supreme People's Court, compiled by our reporter Jin Xin)
