You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

July 7, 2017

Condominium Disputes: Concerns for Joint Owners

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Condominiums have long been one of the most popular properties for people living in Thailand’s big cities. The different units in a condominium are individually owned, while common properties, such as lobby areas or swimming pools, are jointly owned by the owners of individual condominium units.

Unfortunately, disputes among joint owners (the owners of units in the building of each condominium) or between joint owners and the condominium juristic person are sometimes unavoidable. Therefore, it is prudent for joint owners to know and understand laws and regulations related to common condominium disputes.

Exemption of Court Filing Fees in Consumer Cases

Cases between condominium joint owners and a property developer or a condominium juristic person are regarded as consumer cases. Where joint owners sue property developers for breach of contract in delivering incomplete or defective units, the joint owners (considered to be consumers) are exempt from court filing fees according to the Thai Consumer Case Procedure Act B.E. 2551 (2008).

If condominium juristic persons sue joint owners for unpaid expenses from providing common services and maintaining/managing common property (normally known as “common fees”), the condominium juristic persons may sometimes argue that they should be exempt from paying court filing fees as well, since they are not property developers.

Under the Thai Consumer Case Procedure Act, only consumers or persons assigned to file a claim on their behalf are exempt from court filing fees. Condominium juristic persons are considered by the Appellate Court to be business operators and service providers rather than consumers because they are paid a common fee to maintain the condominium building and common property for joint owners. Thus, condominium juristic persons filing claims against joint owners will be required to pay court fees.

It should also be noted that claims for common fees must be filed by the condominium juristic person within five years from the default date.

Debt Clearance Certificate

Under the Thai Condominium Law, joint owners must jointly pay common fees. Previously, condominium juristic persons could refuse to issue a debt clearance certificate for joint owners failing to pay such fees. This would prevent them from registering title transfers with the local Land Office, which requires a debt clearance certificate for the transfer of condominium unit titles. Without the issuance of this certificate, buyers purchasing units via public auction would then have to shoulder the unfair burden of paying outstanding common fees in order to complete the registration of title transfer.

Section 309 quarter was added to the Civil Procedure Code on November 16, 2015, to provide better protection for buyers of condominium units by public auction. Under this section, debt clearance certificates are no longer required for the sale of units by public auction.

Before the sale of any unit by public auction, the executing officer will notify the condominium juristic person to report any outstanding common fees within 30 days from the date of receiving the notice. After the sale, the officer must set aside proceeds from the sale to pay for any outstanding fees to the condominium juristic person (which will have priority before the mortgage creditor).

A competent officer will then register the title transfer for the buyer without requiring a debt clearance certificate. Buyers from public auction therefore no longer have to be responsible for unpaid common fees.

Common Fees

Another critical concern for condominium joint owners involves situations where the condominium juristic person cuts electricity or water, or refuses to hand over key cards to force payment of common fees.

Thailand’s Supreme Court has held that condominium juristic persons can only compel joint owners to pay unpaid common fees by filing a claim with the court. Since joint owners maintain ownership over their personal property and share ownership with the juristic person over the common property in the condominium, they have a right to use the common property. The juristic person cannot obstruct joint owners’ use of common property to compel payment of common fees, and courts will likely view these tactics as wrongful acts against joint owners.

Furthermore, the Thai Supreme Court has ruled that a previous regulation issued to exempt property developers from paying the common fees of unsold units is void, and developers must be responsible for paying the common fees for the units that have not been sold.

There are many potential legal issues that may arise between condominium joint owners and juristic persons. Each party should ensure compliance with their respective duties to avoid potential disputes. Joint owners should learn and understand their rights and responsibilities and comply with the condominium bylaws and seek legal advice when disputes are unavoidable.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Real Estate

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

March 4, 2025
On February 20, 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam made public the executed Resolution 170/2024/QH15, which outlines special mechanisms and policies to address difficulties and obstacles related to notable real estate projects and land issues in Da Nang, Ho Chi Minh City, and Khanh Hoa Province. This resolution, with an effective date of April 1, 2025, aims to resolve issues identified in inspection conclusions, audits, and court judgments, including 1,313 cases of land-use term violations in Da Nang. Solutions Resolution 170 provides a variety of mechanisms and policies to clear the way for projects to proceed with implementation. These may include, depending on the specific location, the following solutions. For issued Land Use Rights Certificates (LURC) that violate the land-use term for business production land in Da Nang: For projects that have already been invested in and utilized, the land-use terms in the LURC may be adjusted to 50 years from the date of the decision on land allocation, land lease, conversion of land use purpose, or actual land handover. For continued use of land, determining land prices, and calculating land use fees and land rental fees applicable to a list of projects in Da Nang, Ho Chi Minh City, and Khanh Hoa Province: The city/provincial People’s Committees will review and complete, within their authority, the procedures related to land, investment, construction, environment, and forestry of such projects in accordance with the current laws. Projects that meet legal and regulatory requirements after thorough review and compliance checks will be allowed to continue, provided they are aligned with urban planning, environmental standards, and national security requirements. In addition, investors must fulfill applicable financial obligations, including land use fees and land rental payments, which will be reassessed and collected based on the land price tables applicable in Da Nang, Ho Chi
Read More
February 26, 2025
Thailand ratified the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards on December 21, 1959, with the Convention coming into force on March 20, 1960. This ratification was a significant step in aligning Thailand’s arbitration framework with international standards, facilitating the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in the country. In Thailand, the enforcement of both domestic and international arbitral awards is governed by the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), which is based on the first version of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration of 1985 (as opposed to the latest version from 2006). However, unlike Australia, Hong Kong, and Singapore, Thailand is not an UNCITRAL Model Law country. While Thailand’s Arbitration Act is influenced by the UNCITRAL Model Law, it incorporates certain local contexts that require interpretation alongside Thai court rulings. The Arbitration Act also confirms the authority of arbitral tribunals to grant interim measures, reinforcing tribunals’ power in managing disputes effectively. Additionally, the act incorporates principles from the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958). This article explores the key procedural steps, timeframes, and practical challenges associated with the enforcement of arbitral awards under Thailand’s legal framework. Procedures for Enforcement of Arbitral Awards in Thailand The enforcement of arbitral awards in Thailand follows the procedures outlined in the Arbitration Act: Application to the competent court: Under the Arbitration Act, parties seeking enforcement must submit a petition to the Thai courts within three years of the award having become enforceable. The application must include the original or certified copies of the arbitral award and the arbitration agreement, along with translations if necessary. In Thailand, the choice of court for filing the arbitral award depends on the nature of the disputed contract. If the contract concerns
Read More
February 21, 2025
As Vietnam continues its government restructuring, including the merging of several key ministries, the country is signaling that mergers of provinces could be next. Conclusion 126-KL/TW of the Politburo and Secretariat, issued on February 14, 2025, sets out several tasks for continuing to streamline the political system in 2025, notably including, among others, the following: Elimination of intermediate administrative levels, and mergers of provincial units: The Government Party Committee is tasked with researching and planning for the elimination of intermediate administrative levels (district levels); reorganizing the commune level with structures, functions, duties, powers, and responsibilities aligned with the new organizational model; and proposing the merging of some provincial administrative units. A report to the Politburo is required by Q3 2025. Reorganization of police structure: The Central Public Security Party Committee is tasked with leading and coordinating the implementation of a three-tier police organization, eliminating the district-level police. Judicial system reforms: The Central Party Committees of the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuracy are tasked with researching and advising on the organizational model for courts and procuracies, and proposing amendments and supplements to relevant party mechanisms and state laws, with the aim of eliminating the district level. A report to the Politburo is required by Q2 2025. Implications of Merging Provinces The merging of provinces could bring positive impacts as well as new challenges. The expected benefits include: Administrative efficiency and cost saving: Reducing the number of administrative units could lead to more efficient governance and decision-making processes, as well as lower administrative costs due to fewer government offices and personnel. Economic development: Larger administrative areas can benefit from better allocation of resources and infrastructure development. Larger provinces may also attract more investment due to increased economic potential and market size. Improved service delivery: Public services could improve
Read More
January 21, 2025
A proposal to establish a specialized Intellectual Property Court in Vietnam has been a topic of significant interest among IP practitioners for the past 20 years. It was thus a major breakthrough when the new Law on the Organization of People’s Courts was ratified in 2024, stipulating in Article 4.1(dd) that the Vietnamese court system would include a specialized first-instance IP Court. The new law took effect on January 1, 2025, replacing the Law on the Organization of People’s Courts of 2014, A groundbreaking law This breakthrough can be viewed from multiple perspectives. First of all, in terms of organization, this is the first time, after numerous considerations, that Vietnam has officially recognized the importance of the IP field and the need to establish a specialized adjudicative body due to the field’s unique nature. The establishment of a specialized first-instance IP Court is expected to lead to fundamental changes in the practice of developing and applying IP law. While the establishment of IP rights such as trademarks, patents, and plant varieties is managed by administrative agencies such as the Intellectual Property Office, the Copyright Office, and the Crop Production Department, which seem unlikely to change their functions and tasks, there could be significant changes in the enforcement of these rights, which has been a persistent issue in Vietnam’s IP law system. Thus far, in practice, the enforcement of IP rights in Vietnam has relied overwhelmingly on administrative measures over civil measures. Civil measures, typically involving court proceedings under which the matter will be submitted to a court for settlement, are not appealing to disputing parties, especially IP rights owners. The absence of a specialized court has led to many IP cases being handled by judges without any knowledge or experience in this specialized field, resulting in confusion, misconceptions about
Read More