Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I realise this thread is a little old, but it’s quite an interesting one.
The responses sound pretty right for the most part, but after reading Section 34, I’ve got a couple of questions … and I’m not sure it’s necessarily correct that it doesn’t allow for using a stand-in as a proxy – in effect, a quasi-proxy or proxy proxy.
First though, is it right that 34 (1) and (2) mean only owners can serve as acting SC members? Whereas, from memory, anyone (owner or not) can be proposed (by an owner) for election to the committee. I wonder why it’s tighter for acting members. Perhaps because the entire OC doesn’t elect them?
Second, I’m not sure that each meeting has to approve the acting member, if that’s what “Ethicsfirst” was asking. As per “Scotlandx”, although an acting member has to be approved in advance by a fair dinkum SC meeting (ie, one that had a quorum), it looks as if they could be proposed and approved for, say, the next three meetings or maybe for, say, the next two months – while Jim (an elected SC member and the proposer) is off using up his Qantas credits.
Re the potential for an acting member to be a proxy proxy: if a soon-to-be absent member sends along someone – pre-approved by the SC – to act for them, that’s pretty much a proxy, isn’t it?
Further, (3) says the proposed acting member can even be someone who is already on the SC. In which case, (4) says they get two votes: their own as an elected SC member plus that of the absent member for whom they’re acting. Which sounds even more like a proxy, no?
Apologies if I’ve missed the point completely and lost sight of the forest for the trees. It’s quite an interesting section anyway – well, up to a point, Lord Copper.
<!–more–>
I think kaindub’s info is on the money – unfortunately, so too the caveat that an LPR’s right to vote or submit a proxy may be wrongly rejected out of ignorance.
This is not simply an interesting question: In dreaded two-lot schemes, where one of the owners has died, rejection of an LPR’s right to be registered on the strata roll and to vote at meetings can have significant consequences.
In my experience (NSW), even strata law specialists seem unclear about what can and can’t be done (by strata committees, owners’ corps, LPRs and heirs) during the periods from the owner’s death until grant of probate/letters of administration; and then from grant of probate until transfer of title to a new owner (an heir or purchaser from the estate).
Even without the rejection of an LPR’s standing, it seems that’s it’s possible for the surviving owner in a two-lot scheme to “make hay” during the period before probate is granted (which can be lengthy – more so if there’s no will or complications with it). Apparently there’s nothing in the NSW legislation to prevent them holding meetings and passing motions (although presumably these could be challenged later).
NSW Fair Trading advised that “next of kin” were automatically entitled to have their interest registered on the strata roll and to vote, but couldn’t provide any legislative basis.
I’d have thought the issue occurred often enough – especially in two-lot schemes – that it would have been clearly resolved in the strata act by now (even though I’d have thought the provisions of the succession act, as per kaindub, hold sway – in NSW anyway).
Intriguing as the prospect of zombie proxies may be, any existing proxy would surely expire on death (as does any power of attorney; as far as I’m aware, you can’t have power of attorney for an estate – in NSW, at least).