A Tale of Two Proxies

Recently an interesting situation arose at a general meeting I was attending.

A lot was owned by a separated couple.

The husband appointed a proxy and the wife appointed a separate proxy.

Both proxy’s turned up to the meeting, met, fell in love and lived happily ever after. No – that last part is not true. They did not live happily ever after!

The Regulation Modules do not contain any provisions which would require one co – owner to advise the other owner that he/she is appointing a proxy.

Essentially, a co – owner can appoint a proxy without the knowledge of the other.

The Modules provide that one lot equals one vote. That is, a lot under co – ownership does not have for example 2 votes.

At the general meeting I was attending, one proxy voted yes, the other – no.

So – how was the vote to be counted.

The answer – it wasn’t to be.

Section 87 (4) of the Standard Module (s85(4) of the Accommodation Module) provides no vote may be counted for a lot on a motion if there is a conflict between the votes of co – owners of the lot.

It won’t matter how many co- owners there are. If say a lot is co – owned by 10 people, and all 10 vote, then all ten must vote the same for the vote to be counted.

That is not to say all 10 must vote. If say 5 of the 10 vote, then all 5 must vote the same for the vote to be counted. Why is that the case? Because if 5 vote “yes” and 5 don’t vote at all, then there is no conflict between the votes. For a conflict to exist some must vote “yes” and some “no”.

As always, ACTIVE LAW is here if ever you need help in deciphering the complexities of BoCo world.