Practical regulations
Usufruct in a condominium: who pays and who votes
When a unit is subject to usufruct, the building manager needs to know who receives the meeting notice, who is entitled to vote, and who pays for what. Italian law does not leave this to common sense: article 67 of the implementing provisions of the civil code sets a precise split between the usufructuary and the bare owner, distinguishing ordinary from extraordinary administration. Getting a resolution's attribution wrong, or notifying the wrong person, can make the assembly decision voidable. This guide explains, through the most frequent practical scenarios, how expenses and voting rights are divided, and how a manager can correctly handle the registry when full ownership, bare ownership and usufruct coexist in the same building.
What article 67 of the implementing provisions establishes
Article 67, first paragraph, of the implementing provisions of the civil code states that, in the case of usufruct, the right to vote in meetings belongs to the usufructuary for resolutions concerning ordinary administration and the plain enjoyment of common things and services. The bare owner instead holds the vote for resolutions concerning innovations, extraordinary maintenance works, and any other decision that exceeds ordinary administration.
The logic is straightforward: whoever uses the property day to day decides on matters affecting current enjoyment, such as cleaning, heating, concierge services and minor repairs, while whoever retains future ownership decides on matters affecting the value and structure of the property over the long term, such as facade renovation, elevator replacement or structural works.
Splitting expenses: ordinary and extraordinary
The split of expenses largely follows the same criterion as voting, grounded also in the general discipline of usufruct (articles 1004 and following of the civil code), which places ordinary maintenance costs on the usufructuary and extraordinary repairs on the bare owner.
- Usufructuary: staircase cleaning, water and electricity consumption for common areas, centralized heating, the manager's fee for ordinary administration, minor routine maintenance, insurance for the portion under its responsibility.
- Bare owner: extraordinary maintenance works such as roof or facade renovation and common system replacement, innovations resolved under article 1120 of the civil code, and interventions that exceed ordinary conservation.
- In borderline cases, where an expense sits between the two categories, it is advisable that the condominium bylaws or a written agreement between the usufructuary and the bare owner clarify the split in advance, to avoid disputes after the resolution is passed.
Meeting notice and standing: who receives it
The manager notifies the usufructuary of meeting items concerning ordinary administration, and the bare owner of items concerning extraordinary administration or innovation. When the agenda includes both categories, the safest practice is to notify both parties, specifying in the notice which item each one is entitled to vote on, so the resolution is not exposed to challenge for a notice defect.
It is advisable that the manager collect both parties' details as soon as the usufruct is established, typically through a registered notarial deed, and keep them distinct in the condominium registry, so that communications, meeting notices and installment allocation are routed correctly. Software such as AmministraPro allows the usufructuary and the bare owner to be recorded separately on the same unit and automatically generates the correct communications based on the subject of each resolution.
Joint liability and special cases
If the manager cannot obtain payment from the party liable under article 67, it remains possible to pursue the other party, since both answer to the condominium for the contribution obligation attached to the unit, leaving the two parties to settle their internal relationship separately. This is particularly relevant when collecting condominium fees, where the condominium has an interest in being paid regardless of the internal split between usufructuary and bare owner.
In the case of joint usufruct with several bare co-owners or several usufructuaries, the resolution on voting follows the same rules as co-ownership: the notice must be addressed to all entitled parties, unless a common representative has been designated.
Frequently asked questions
Can the usufructuary vote on extraordinary innovations if the bare owner does not attend the meeting?
No. The right to vote on innovations and extraordinary maintenance belongs by law to the bare owner, not the usufructuary, regardless of whether the bare owner attends the meeting. If the bare owner does not attend, that item must be treated as the absence of an entitled voter on that specific point, and it cannot be filled by the usufructuary's vote. A private agreement between the parties can delegate the vote, but it should be formalized through a written proxy communicated to the manager before the meeting.
Who pays the building manager's fee, the usufructuary or the bare owner?
The manager's fee for ordinary administration of the condominium falls within ordinary expenses and is therefore borne by the usufructuary, unless part of the fee is attributable to extraordinary activities, such as overseeing an extraordinary maintenance project, in which case that portion can be charged to the bare owner under the general criterion of article 67.
How should the manager act if unaware that a unit is subject to usufruct?
The manager should be informed in writing of the existence of the usufruct, typically by the notary who drafted the deed or by the parties themselves, and should update the condominium registry distinguishing the usufructuary from the bare owner. Absent formal communication, the manager may reasonably rely on land registry records or data already on file, but it remains good practice to periodically request an update of each unit's ownership situation, also to prevent challengeable resolutions.
Do extraordinary works resolved before the usufruct was established remain the seller's responsibility or pass to the bare owner?
Contribution obligations tied to resolutions already approved before the usufruct was established generally follow the standard rules on transferring condominium charges: whoever owned the property when the resolution was passed generally remains liable for the already resolved installments, unless the parties agreed otherwise in the deed establishing the usufruct. It is therefore important that the deed expressly addresses the fate of pending resolutions, to avoid disputes both between the parties and with the condominium.
Can management software help handle usufruct and bare ownership correctly in a condominium?
Yes. Software designed for condominium managers, such as AmministraPro, allows both the usufructuary and the bare owner to be registered on the same unit with distinct roles, automatically routes meeting notices based on whether each agenda item is ordinary or extraordinary, and keeps separate track of the amounts charged to each party, reducing the risk of errors in expense allocation and challengeable resolutions.
Try AmministraPro
Accounting, thousandths-based cost splitting, meetings, communications and artificial intelligence in a single Italian software, compliant with UNI 10801 and GDPR.