Managing the appointment of a court-appointed manager

When a court petition is available

Article 1129 of the Civil Code establishes that when a condominium has more than eight co-owners, appointing a manager is mandatory. If a properly convened assembly fails to appoint one, or if the sitting manager leaves office through resignation, removal, death or expiry of the term and the assembly does not replace them, any co-owner can turn to the court.

A court petition is a last-resort measure: it presumes the ordinary path has already been tried without success, meaning an assembly was convened with the appointment or replacement of the manager on the agenda. In practice this comes up often in buildings with high conflict among co-owners, where no majority can form, or in small buildings where nobody wants to take on the role.

The petition: who can file it and how to prepare it

The petition can be filed by any co-owner, without needing a quorum or prior assembly authorization: it is an individual right precisely because it protects a collective interest in proper management. It must be filed with the court where the building is located, with the assistance of a lawyer.

The court assesses whether the requirements are met and, if it finds inertia or an inability to resolve the matter, issues a decree appointing a court manager, often a professional listed in dedicated registers or already experienced in condominium management.

• The building regulations, if they exist
• The ownership share table (tabella millesimale)
• The minutes of the last assembly showing the failed attempt to appoint a manager
• The notices sent and any responses or absences
• Proof that the building has more than eight units

Effects of the appointment and duration of the mandate

A court-appointed manager has the same powers and duties as one appointed by the assembly: representing the building, collecting contributions, overseeing maintenance of common areas, keeping accounts and convening assemblies under Article 1130 of the Civil Code. The substantial difference concerns the origin of the mandate, not its content.

The court appointment is not meant to last indefinitely: once ordinary management is restored, the assembly can confirm the manager through its own resolution or replace them with one of its choosing. In the meantime, the court-appointed manager remains subject to the same reporting and transparency obligations as any other manager, including the dedicated bank account required by Article 1129 of the Civil Code.

Practical management during and after the court appointment

For the building, the arrival of a court-appointed manager is often the occasion to reorganize management on more solid footing. A good manager, whether court-appointed or assembly-appointed, relies on digital tools to ensure transparency on budgets, payment traceability and timely communication with residents: this is exactly what makes management software like AmministraPro useful in these delicate transitions, since it lets whoever takes over quickly reconstruct the building's financial and documentary situation.

Anyone taking charge of a building after a court appointment should carefully check the prior accounting, ongoing supplier contracts and the payment status of individual co-owners, to avoid unknowingly inheriting irregular situations.

Frequently asked questions