Changing Cost-Sharing Criteria Without Unanimity: Void

The owners' meeting cannot change by majority, in a stable way and for the future, the criteria for allocating expenses set by law or by the contractual regulation: such a resolution is void and may be challenged by anyone with an interest, with no time limit. Different is the resolution that, in a single case, actually allocates an expense departing from the criteria: that is only voidable, challengeable within thirty days. The distinction, set by the case law of the Joint Chambers of the Court of Cassation, is decisive because it radically changes the timing and the parties entitled to contest the decision.

The principle: sharing criteria are a matter of unanimous consent

Article 1123 of the Italian Civil Code sets the legal sharing criteria: expenses are borne by owners in proportion to the value of each one's property, unless otherwise agreed; expenses for the preservation and enjoyment of things intended to serve to different degrees are shared in proportion to use; and things serving only part of the building are borne by the group that benefits. These criteria, or those set by an agreement, shape each owner's financial position.

Precisely because they directly affect each owner's assets, sharing criteria cannot be overturned by majority vote. Changing them generally amounts to permanently redistributing the burden of expenses: an operation that requires the consent of all owners, that is, unanimity. Without it, the change lacks one of its prerequisites and the resolution containing it is void.

The Joint Chambers' distinction between nullity and voidability

The Joint Chambers of the Court of Cassation clarified a dividing line that is often confused. Two situations must be distinguished:

• A resolution that changes the sharing criteria set by law or by agreement, intended to apply to the future and indefinitely: without unanimous consent it is void, because it affects individual rights and stably alters the arrangement of expenses.
• A resolution that, while applying the existing criteria, breaches them when actually allocating a single expense: it is voidable, because it does not change the rules but applies them wrongly in a specific case.

The difference is not theoretical. A void resolution may be challenged at any time by anyone with an interest, even by someone who voted in favour at the meeting. A voidable resolution, on the other hand, must be challenged within thirty days by absent, dissenting or abstaining owners only, and if no one acts within the deadline it consolidates and becomes binding.

Practical examples to find your bearings

Suppose the meeting decides that, from now on, lift expenses will be split equally among everyone rather than under the criteria of Article 1124: this is a general and permanent change of the criterion, which without unanimity is void. Suppose instead that, for a single bill, the meeting miscalculates and charges an owner a share higher than the one due under the current table: here the criterion has not changed, it has been misapplied, and the resolution is voidable within thirty days.

A third scenario concerns the thousandths (millesimi) tables. Correcting or amending the tables generally requires everyone's consent when the tables are contractual in nature or when the change affects the arrangement of rights; simply correcting a clerical error follows less strict rules. In case of doubt, the prudent course is to check the nature of the table and the scope of the change before resolving.

What the manager must do

The manager's task is to guide the meeting and avoid resolutions destined to fall. If a proposal aims to permanently change the sharing criteria, it must be flagged that unanimity is needed: passing it by majority would produce a void decision and a source of litigation. It is good practice to state clearly on the agenda whether the matter is applying the current criteria or changing them, so that owners know which majority is required.

Preventing allocation errors with adequate tools

Many challenges arise from calculation errors in the actual allocation, which make the resolution voidable without any intention to change the rules. Automatically applying the thousandths tables and the criteria by expense type reduces this risk at the root. With AmministraPro the allocation of expenses follows the tables and criteria set for each type of work, with a transparent and verifiable recalculation, so that the application of the criteria stays faithful to what was established. The allocation and reporting features are described on /funzioni and the plans on /prezzi.