Challenging a condominium resolution: grounds and deadlines

Challenging a condominium resolution is the tool by which an owner can contest before the court a decision of the meeting they consider flawed. Not every disagreement justifies an action: the law distinguishes between defects that make a resolution voidable and defects that make it null, with different deadlines and standing. Knowing this distinction is essential both for the owner who wants to defend their rights and for the administrator who must prevent disputes.

The legal framework: article 1137 of the Civil Code

Challenging the resolutions of the meeting is governed by article 1137 of the Italian Civil Code. The rule states that resolutions passed by the meeting are binding on all owners, but that those contrary to the law or to the regulation may be challenged before the court. The challenge does not, in itself, suspend the execution of the resolution, unless the court orders its suspension by a specific measure.

Voidability: the general rule

According to settled case law, the general rule is that flawed resolutions are voidable, while nullity is an exceptional and residual case. Voidable resolutions include, for example, those affected by procedural defects, such as an irregular or incomplete notice, those adopted without the majorities required by article 1136, or those that affect individual interests in a way that does not comply with the allocation rules. The defect is not so serious as to strike down the act at its root, but it makes it contestable.

Nullity: the most serious cases

Nullity concerns the most serious cases: the absence of the resolution's essential constituent elements, an object that is impossible in a material or legal sense, or unlawful content because it is contrary to mandatory rules, public policy or public morals. Null resolutions include, for example, those that dispose of property outside the condominium or that affect individual exclusive ownership rights without the consent of those concerned. Nullity is a structural defect the resolution carries from the outset.

The thirty-day term

For voidable resolutions article 1137 sets a thirty-day term of a decadential nature: if it passes without action, the right to challenge is definitively lost. The term runs from the date of the resolution for dissenting or abstaining owners present at the meeting, and from the date the minutes are communicated for absent owners. Null resolutions, by contrast, may be challenged without any time limit.

The decadential nature of the term has important practical consequences. Unlike a limitation period, decadence does not allow suspensions or interruptions outside the cases strictly provided by law: simply sending a formal notice to the administrator, for example, does not stop the thirty days from running. This is why an owner who intends to contest a voidable resolution must act promptly, assessing the defects at once and starting mediation, the only step capable of affecting the term within the limits provided.

Who may challenge

Standing to challenge changes according to the defect. Voidable resolutions may be challenged only by absent, dissenting or abstaining owners: those who voted in favour cannot contest them. Null resolutions, on the other hand, may be raised by anyone with an interest, including the owner who voted in favour, and may also be noticed by the court of its own motion. This difference reflects the differing gravity of the two types of defect.

Mandatory mediation

Before turning to the court to challenge a resolution in condominium matters, mediation must be attempted, as it is a condition for the claim to proceed. The attempt at conciliation takes place before a mediation body and aims to resolve the dispute without litigation. Note that starting mediation does not automatically suspend the running of the thirty-day term, so it is best to act promptly.

How the proceeding unfolds

Once mediation has been attempted without success, the challenge is brought before the court of the place where the condominium is located. The owner, normally assisted by a lawyer, sets out the defects they believe justify the annulment or nullity of the resolution and the factual and legal grounds of the claim. If they fear that executing the resolution will cause them harm, they may ask the court for a precautionary suspension, which the court grants after weighing the seriousness of the defect and the damage. The outcome may confirm the resolution, annul it or declare it null, with effects on how the litigation costs are shared between the parties.

Preventing challenges with software

Many challenges arise from avoidable procedural defects: late notices, a generic agenda, wrongly calculated quorums, incomplete minutes. Management software helps to meet the notice deadlines, to structure the agenda correctly, to calculate majorities automatically on the basis of the thousandth shares and to draw up complete, archived minutes. Reducing formal errors means making resolutions stronger and less exposed to challenge.

AmministraPro supports the administrator in running the meeting, from timely notice to the calculation of millesimal quorums and the drafting and storage of minutes, reducing the defects that lead to challenging a resolution. You can see how it works on the features page or compare the plans in the pricing section.