Who Votes at the Assembly: Usufructuary or Bare Owner

When an apartment is subject to usufruct, property managers often wonder who to notify of an assembly meeting between the usufructuary and the bare owner, and above all which of the two holds voting rights on each resolution. This matter is governed by Article 67 of the implementing provisions of the Italian Civil Code, which precisely distinguishes the respective powers of each party depending on the topic under discussion at the assembly, avoiding overlaps and disputes over voting rights.

The general rule: the usufructuary votes on ordinary administration

As a general principle, the usufructuary, as the holder of the right to enjoy the property and collect its fruits, exercises voting rights on all resolutions concerning ordinary administration and the simple enjoyment of common parts: approval of the annual budget and the final statement relating to ordinary management, appointment and removal of the property manager, and the building rules insofar as they govern the use of common assets. This is because such resolutions directly affect current management expenses, which are borne economically by the usufructuary under the general rules on splitting costs between usufructuary and bare owner.

Structural alterations and major works belong to the bare owner

For resolutions concerning structural alterations, reconstruction, and generally extraordinary maintenance works that affect the substance and value of the property, voting rights instead belong to the bare owner. The logic is that such interventions affect the structure of the asset and its capital value, a matter that concerns full ownership rather than simple enjoyment, and for this reason the decision falls to whoever remains the owner once the usufruct ends.

Notifying the assembly when usufruct exists

In practice, when a unit is subject to usufruct, the meeting notice should be sent to both parties, because it is not always possible to know in advance which agenda items fall under the competence of one or the other, and some agendas mix ordinary administration items with items touching on structural alterations or major works. A prudent property manager sends the notice to both addresses, when different, specifying in the minutes who actually voted on each item, so that compliance with the allocation of competence is traceable and verifiable.

How millesimal shares are counted at the assembly

An important technical point concerns how millesimal shares are counted for the validity of the resolution and the constitutive quorum. For matters within the usufructuary's competence, the millesimal share of the unit subject to usufruct is counted as expressed by the usufructuary's vote; for matters within the bare owner's competence, the latter's vote counts. This is not a division of millesimal shares between the two parties, but an alternation of voting entitlement depending on the topic, with the unit's full millesimal weight remaining unchanged.

What happens if the usufructuary and the bare owner disagree

Since the law assigns voting competence on different matters to different parties, in theory there should be no direct voting conflict on the same item. Practical difficulties arise instead when an agenda contains a single item that mixes elements of ordinary administration and extraordinary works: in such cases, when drafting the agenda, the property manager should clearly separate the items to be voted on individually, so as to precisely identify who has the right to vote on each.

The allocation of voting rights between usufructuary and bare owner follows the matter under discussion, not a conventional split agreed between the parties: it is the law, through Article 67 of the implementing provisions, that establishes who votes on what.

Notifying the property manager of the title

For this mechanism to work correctly, it is essential that the property manager be informed of the existence of the usufruct and of the identifying details of both parties, the usufructuary and the bare owner. This information falls among the data that Article 1130 of the Civil Code requires to be recorded in the condominium registry, and owners, or anyone acquiring a real right over the unit, bear the burden of promptly reporting changes. In the absence of such notice, the property manager can rely on the registry already in their possession, but it remains advisable to request an update as soon as the establishment of the usufruct becomes known.

• Usufructuary: votes on ordinary administration, current management budgets, and appointment of the property manager.
• Bare owner: votes on structural alterations, reconstruction, and extraordinary works affecting the property's value.
• Millesimal shares: not split between the two, the vote of the party competent for the matter applies.
• Notice of meeting: as a precaution, it should be sent to both when addresses differ.

A point of attention for the property manager

The presence of a usufruct over one or more units therefore requires the property manager to pay particular attention when drafting the agenda, managing meeting notices, and recording votes in the minutes, to avoid a resolution being challenged for a defect in voting entitlement. Orderly management of the condominium registry, with a clear indication of the real rights burdening each unit, is the foundation for correctly applying this allocation.

Keeping track of situations like this, with always up-to-date records and traceable meeting notices, is much easier with software designed for condominium management. AmministraPro helps property managers correctly handle cases of usufruct, bare ownership, and other real rights, as described on the features page, while the plans for property management firms are outlined in the pricing section.