Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Is it possible to remove amend covenants within a Leasehold Contract

Options
  • 19-05-2017 10:01am
    #1
    drang3d
    Registered Users Posts: 3 ✭


    Hi

    I own an apartment in a development which has a covenant which prohibits the owners from keeping commercial vehicles. I'm about to change jobs and a perk of the job is they provide a commercial van which obviously I wouldnt be allow keep at the development. Most of the unit owners within the development think this rule is ridiculous.

    What I want to know is, is it possible to change a covenant within a conveyancing document. What would it take? I don't think I could do it on my own and would probably require agreement of all members of the management company. But I'd like to know if its possible and the steps involved to get it done.


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    athtrasna
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,420 ✭✭✭✭athtrasna


    drang3d wrote: »
    Hi

    I own an apartment in a development which has a covenant which prohibits the owners from keeping commercial vehicles. I'm about to change jobs and a perk of the job is they provide a commercial van which obviously I wouldnt be allow keep at the development. Most of the unit owners within the development think this rule is ridiculous.

    What I want to know is, is it possible to change a covenant within a conveyancing document. What would it take? I don't think I could do it on my own and would probably require agreement of all members of the management company. But I'd like to know if its possible and the steps involved to get it done.

    It's likely to be a condition of planning permission.

    And yes it would need 100% agreement by all members of the management company


  • Options
    #3
    Gandalph
    Registered Users Posts: 1,792 ✭✭✭Gandalph


    Not heard of this before, would a majority vote at an AGM not do the trick?


  • Options
    #4
    athtrasna
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,420 ✭✭✭✭athtrasna


    Gandalph wrote: »
    Not heard of this before, would a majority vote at an AGM not do the trick?

    No


  • Options
    #5
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    athtrasna wrote: »
    No

    Ironic though it may seem- I'm stuck in a very similar situation with a novel twist- the person seeking the amendment to the owner's lease- is a new owner, who got himself elected to the Management Company- specifically to block attempts to take action against his breaches of his lease covenants- and is now trying to say that they weren't enforced, therefore they are unenforceable. Two other owners (who also want to keep dogs) are backing the guy up. Sigh.......


  • Options
    #6
    Mrs OBumble
    Registered Users Posts: 25,959 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    Surely it depends on the terms of the specific lease?

    In the one I own (admittedly overseas), all it takes is over 50% agreement.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Mrs OBumble wrote: »
    Surely it depends on the terms of the specific lease?

    In the one I own (admittedly overseas), all it takes is over 50% agreement.

    I think it has to be unanimous here- you can't simply bring in a mob to an AGM and vote whatever the hell you want through.......


  • Options
    #8
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    Mrs OBumble wrote: »
    Surely it depends on the terms of the specific lease?

    In the one I own (admittedly overseas), all it takes is over 50% agreement.

    If it was within the bounds of company law it would be a special resolution and a 75% requirement. Even then it would be open to an individual shareholder to object and say they their minority rights denied. The OMC though don't decide the lease they merely exist to operate certain functions. So there is no mechanism even at 100% agreement - it's just at that point there's no objection .


  • Options
    #9
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    I think it has to be unanimous here- you can't simply bring in a mob to an AGM and vote whatever the hell you want through.......

    Well you can and people frequently do :pac: (usually a very small mob as no one turns up to these things). But just not something that's in the lease thankfully.


  • Options
    #10
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »
    If it was within the bounds of company law it would be a special resolution and a 75% requirement. Even then it would be open to an individual shareholder to object and say they their minority rights denied. The OMC though don't decide the lease they merely exist to operate certain functions. So there is no mechanism even at 100% agreement - it's just at that point there's no objection .

    It is not that simple. Many leasehold interests are mortgaged. It is not possible for someone to amend the terms of their mortgaged lease without the consent of the bank.


  • Options
    #11
    jimmycrackcorm
    Registered Users Posts: 14,339 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    The_Conductor wrote:
    I think it has to be unanimous here- you can't simply bring in a mob to an AGM and vote whatever the hell you want through.......


    But the key is who would take action? I.e. if a majority of the MC voted to not take action about having commercial vehicles then who is actually going yup do something about it?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    jimmycrackcorm wrote: »
    But the key is who would take action? I.e. if a majority of the MC voted to not take action about having commercial vehicles then who is actually going yup do something about it?

    I'd imagine you'd then have recourse through minority rights (company law).


  • Options
    #13
    jd
    Registered Users Posts: 5,700 ✭✭✭jd


    Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »
    I'd imagine you'd then have recourse through minority rights (company law).
    Also in the circuit court as per mud act sect 24
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2011/act/2/section/24/enacted/en/html#sec24


  • Options
    #14
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    jd wrote: »
    Also in the circuit court as per mud act sect 24
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2011/act/2/section/24/enacted/en/html#sec24

    Thanks for the correction, that is no doubt the correct (and probably only) course.


Advertisement