Sectional title trustee question

[RedViking]

Trustees are like a bunch or preschoolers fighting over a lunchbox. In the end the food will rot but they will all still have their opinion on how it should have been eaten.

 

[jezzad]

And then have everyone in the block constantly eyeing you with suspicion. This is one of the ways to turn all the other owners against you.

I am a trustee and would never want that. If my SO wished to be a trustee, I would resign.

Your morals seem to be sound and true, this is rare. In the block I was in, two of the trustees owned the same unit (both names on title deed) and one of them was the chairman.

Very questionable deals (painting, lift maintenance) were pushed through. They couldn’t give a hoot about that people thought about them.

Body Corporate rules as a side note are only enforceable if they have been lodged at the deeds office.

 

[jezzad]

Nope you'd not, as it's only one vote per unit, so why wouldn't that carry over to the trustees meetings?

Its one vote per unit when electing trustees. Trustees can make decisions autonomously without consulting owners. They can raise a special levy, spend money etc without necessarily asking or consulting with owners.

The vote per unit only applies to annual AGM and electing trustees.

 

[Speedster]

Unless it's within the rules of their sectional title, which I'm pretty sure the OP hasn't bothered to read. Also it's generally limited to owners, as in members of the body corporate. So unless his Girlfriend is on the Title deed with him, than they can turn around and say no.
There are times when a non-owner has been a trustee but those are because the owner has given up his chance, there was a vote and it was decided by said body corporate.

You are making many assumptions here. Also, as I said, if it is in the local rules they can always vote to change the rules.

 

[Lupus]

You are making many assumptions here. Also, as I said, if it is in the local rules they can always vote to change the rules.

No I'm not making assumptions, the rule is the trustee has to be an owner, the only time it becomes difficult is if there are multiple owners on the same deed. If that's the case than you could technically argue it. There are times a trustee isn't an owner, but it's rare.

 

[Lupus]

Its one vote per unit when electing trustees. Trustees can make decisions autonomously without consulting owners. They can raise a special levy, spend money etc without necessarily asking or consulting with owners.

The vote per unit only applies to annual AGM and electing trustees.

And trustees are owners, unless the title deed has more than one owner on it which than might be a case.

 

[jezzad]

And trustees are owners, unless the title deed has more than one owner on it which than might be a case.

Trustees don't have to be owners. Trustees can be tenants or could have nothing to do with the block at all.

 

[Lupus]

And then have everyone in the block constantly eyeing you with suspicion. This is one of the ways to turn all the other owners against you.

I am a trustee and would never want that. If my SO wished to be a trustee, I would resign.

Which is probably the right thing to do. Though normally trustees are owners, unless allowed by the BC.

 

[Lupus]

Trustees don't have to be owners. Trustees can be tenants or could have nothing to do with the block at all.

https://www.sdlaw.co.za/trustee-role-in-sectional-title-law/
"
Who can be a trustee?
Trustees are the people who are appointed to look after the finances and running of the sectional title scheme on behalf of the body corporate (the body of unit owners). Any member of the body corporate can be a trustee. The managing agent of the scheme is also eligible for trusteeship but only if he or she is an owner of a unit. Trustees are elected by the body corporate and ideally should be people with practical skills that are useful in running the scheme, such as accounting or law, or knowledge of relevant trades. A trustee can be someone who is not an owner in the scheme, but this is unusual. The majority of trustees must be owners. The role of trustee is voluntary, though a non-owner trustee may receive a fee; and all trustees are entitled to reimbursement of reasonable expenses."

Yes you're correct, they don't have to be, but it's up to the BC. You won't get very far if you keep going against the BC, the OP is already trying to go against the BC, if they only want one trustree per a unit than it's one trustee per unit. Why go against that? You want to live there and have a peaceful stay.
If you want to change rules, then push for them and get the BC to help, if they don't want it than tough.

 

[Speedster]

No I'm not making assumptions, the rule is the trustee has to be an owner, the only time it becomes difficult is if there are multiple owners on the same deed. If that's the case than you could technically argue it. There are times a trustee isn't an owner, but it's rare.

There is no such rule

 

[supersunbird]

Trustees are like a bunch or preschoolers fighting over a lunchbox. In the end the food will rot but they will all still have their opinion on how it should have been eaten.

Then what are the unit owners and tenants? Infants?

 

[shooter69]

And then have everyone in the block constantly eyeing you with suspicion. This is one of the ways to turn all the other owners against you.

I am a trustee and would never want that. If my SO wished to be a trustee, I would resign.

exactly this!

 

[Lupus]

There is no such rule

FFS if they as their own BC decide it's one trustee per a unit than it's one trustee per unit. If you want to go ahead and push for it to be different than go for it. But they decided that it's their rule, you want to live in the place than follow the rules, if you want to not follow the rules don't live there.

 

[RedViking]

Then what are the unit owners and tenants? Infants?

Girls hitting puberty.

 

[Speedster]

https://www.sdlaw.co.za/trustee-role-in-sectional-title-law/
"
Who can be a trustee?
Trustees are the people who are appointed to look after the finances and running of the sectional title scheme on behalf of the body corporate (the body of unit owners). Any member of the body corporate can be a trustee. The managing agent of the scheme is also eligible for trusteeship but only if he or she is an owner of a unit. Trustees are elected by the body corporate and ideally should be people with practical skills that are useful in running the scheme, such as accounting or law, or knowledge of relevant trades. A trustee can be someone who is not an owner in the scheme, but this is unusual. The majority of trustees must be owners. The role of trustee is voluntary, though a non-owner trustee may receive a fee; and all trustees are entitled to reimbursement of reasonable expenses."

Yes you're correct, they don't have to be, but it's up to the BC. You won't get very far if you keep going against the BC, the OP is already trying to go against the BC, if they only want one trustree per a unit than it's one trustee per unit. Why go against that? You want to live there and have a peaceful stay.
If you want to change rules, then push for them and get the BC to help, if they don't want it than tough.

The op isn't going against the BC. We have no idea how the BC feels about his nomination. All we know is the chairperson said no.

P.s. the body corporate includes all the owners

 

[jezzad]

FFS if they as their own BC decide it's one trustee per a unit than it's one trustee per unit. If you want to go ahead and push for it to be different than go for it. But they decided that it's their rule, you want to live in the place than follow the rules, if you want to not follow the rules don't live there.

Agreed that being “difficult” is not going to improve your life in the block.

BC would need to have these special rules (one trustee per unit) lodged at the deeds office to make them enforceable. Otherwise normal sectional title rules would apply.

Those don't limit trustees per unit.

 

[Lupus]

The op isn't going against the BC. We have no idea how the BC feels about his nomination. All we know is the chairperson said no.

P.s. the body corporate includes all the owners

I know the BC is all the owners, they ultimately decide how the place is run, the trustees are just their elected representations. The OP is going against the BC as the chairperson was elected by the trustees who were elected by the BC. Therefore the chairperson is a representative of the BC. If they want to argue it, they could call a meeting or read their Sectiontal title rules.

 

[shooter69]

Trustees are like a bunch or preschoolers fighting over a lunchbox. In the end the food will rot but they will all still have their opinion on how it should have been eaten.

Sour about something? Tell us what what the preschoolers did to hurt your feelings so much..

 

[Speedster]

I know the BC is all the owners, they ultimately decide how the place is run, the trustees are just their elected representations. The OP is going against the BC as the chairperson was elected by the trustees who were elected by the BC. Therefore the chairperson is a representative of the BC. If they want to argue it, they could call a meeting or read their Sectiontal title rules.

I don't get your issue. OP asked if there was a rule prohibiting his and his SOs combined availability. There is no such rule. It seems we finally agree on that.

Let me make an assumption (since we're assuming everything today). What if BC is fed up with current trustees (chairperson incl) and want to drain the swamp with new trustees, which the chairperson is kicking against? Why can't the OP put himself and SO up for nomination and let the BC decide?

 

[isie]

Can argue who can be a trustee till the cows come home, but logically they both can nominate themselves or each other but the rest of the BC still needs to agree to both of their appointments as trustees at the AGM.

OP not sure why both of you want to be trustees just more headache.

 

[RedViking]

Sour about something? Tell us what what the preschoolers did to hurt your feelings so much..

It's the daily soapy at 7:

"The walls must be blue, no the walls must be white, no but he painted it blue, no it was supposed to be white..."