The condominium is not a legal entity with its own personality separate from that of those who are part of it. It is like a management body that operates in representation and in the common interest of the participants. The existence of a unitary representative body, such as the administrator, does not, however, deprive the individual participants of the right to work in defense of common rights, pertaining to the condominium building. You can visit https://www.atlantadreamliving.com/ and come up with the best deals there.
Individual Options
Each individual condominium can, therefore, take legal action and intervene in the same, when this defense has already been assumed by the administrator, but also as in the concrete case, propose opposition to the injunction issued against the condominium. This is because the condominium retains the power to act in defense not only of its exclusive ownership rights but also of its pro quota co-owner rights of the common parts, with the possibility of resorting to the judicial authority in the event of inertia of the condominium administration, pursuant to law.
- The Civil Code dictated in the matter of communion, but also applicable to the condominium of buildings for the postponement set by art. Civil Code, as well as to intervene in the proceedings in which the defense of the rights of condominiums on the common areas has already been legitimately assumed by the administrator.
- The opponent complained that he had suffered damages as a result of the work carried out by the company and asked the Court, after ascertaining the respective responsibilities of the individual defendants, that they be sentenced to pay the sum or the different withholding tax justice.
- The company was brought to trial, first objecting to the nullity or non-existence of the notification of the notice of opposition, the lack of active legitimacy of the opponent and the nullity of the call in question by the third parties. On the merits, he contested that the damages complained of by the opponent related to his own work, specifying that the credit activated referred to the mere replacement of material wasted on the roof of the building and the installation of scaffolding.
- The Condominium was also formed, both pleading the nullity of their call in question with another judgment pending between them before the Court on the merits, they contested the claim and asked for its rejection. The case, without carrying out preliminary investigations, was postponed for oral discussion and contextual decision, with a deadline for filing final notes.
The Exceptional Options
The exception of the nullity of the third party’s call without prior authorization of the judge is founded. By consolidated teaching of the Supreme Court, the opponent of an injunction order to call into question a third party cannot directly sue him for the first hearing but must ask the judge, in the notice of opposition, to be authorized to do so, determining, in absence, an ex officio and inseparable revocation of amnesty due to the establishment of the third party called.
In this regard, it should be noted that the non-existence does not allow any possibility of amnesty since, in fact, the omitted attachment to the notification of the notice of opposition involves, not the mere nullity, but the non-existence of the act itself and, therefore, the absence of legal knowledge of the act to which the notification in favor of the counterparty tends.
