Owners' meeting authorization to bring a lawsuit

The owners' meeting authorization to bring a lawsuit is the resolution by which the owners decide to start litigation in the common interest. Unlike passive defense over the common parts, which the manager may undertake alone, active litigation often requires the meeting's support. The decision is adopted with the majorities of Article 1136 of the Italian Civil Code and may also validate, by ratification, activity already started by the manager.

The difference between suing and defending

Article 1131 treats active and passive representation differently. To resist actions concerning the common parts the manager needs no resolution; to sue, that is to take the initiative of a case, the manager's autonomous standing is limited to acts preserving the rights over the common assets and to what falls within the powers of Article 1130. Beyond these boundaries the meeting's will is required.

In practice the manager may act alone to interrupt a limitation period, for an urgent conservative action, or to recover unpaid contributions on the basis of the approved allocation statement. For litigation exceeding these cases, such as a complex damages action or a case with a significant economic outcome, a mandate from the meeting is necessary.

The required majorities

The resolution authorizing the lawsuit is adopted with the majorities set by Article 1136. The general rule for ordinary decisions requires, at the second call, the favorable vote of the majority of those present representing at least one third of the building's value. For matters of greater weight the law provides higher quorums. It is good practice for the agenda to state precisely the subject of the case and the mandate to the lawyer.

• State the specific subject of the litigation in the agenda
• Resolve the appointment of the defense lawyer
• Set a spending cap and the advance allocation of costs
• Record the decision clearly and completely in the minutes

Ratification of the manager's conduct

When the manager acts in an urgent situation, or starts a case before obtaining the resolution, the meeting may intervene afterwards with a ratification. Ratification validates the activity carried out and produces effects as if the authorization had been prior. It is a valuable tool because it prevents the litigation from stalling over a formal flaw, but it must be used carefully: if the meeting denies ratification, the manager may remain exposed for the costs incurred.

What the resolution should contain

An effective resolution describes the dispute, identifies the counterparty, gives the mandate to the lawyer and allocates the necessary resources. Naming the lawyer and the economic terms of the engagement lets the owners assess the risk of the case knowingly. The clarity of the minutes is also a safeguard against challenges: a generic decision without a defined subject may be contested by a dissenting owner.

The dissenting owner

An owner who does not share the choice to start or continue the litigation may dissociate under Article 1132, notifying the manager of the dissent within thirty days of learning of the resolution. In case of an unfavorable outcome the dissenting owner separates liability for the economic consequences toward the other owners, while remaining bound toward the prevailing counterparty.

Managing the process in order

Timely convening, a precise agenda, complete minutes and preservation of documents are the steps that make the meeting authorization solid. With AmministraPro the manager prepares notices and minutes, tracks resolutions and stores the litigation documents in one environment: the features are described on the /funzioni page and the plans for the practice can be compared on /prezzi.