You never really know what the developer of a condo complex has up there sleeve. A well known condo developer in Alberta has recently decided to put a pole up in the middle of a number of parking stalls advertising them for sale. What's interesting is that this complex is about 10 years old and completely owner occupied.
The bylaws of this particular condo corporation state that you can't own a stall unless you own a unit. So how is it they still own 10 stalls and are also advertising them for sale? The condo corporation also restricts signage. Apparently some developers feel the rules don't apply to them because they built the building.
Sounds about right, it’s ok for me to do it but you can’t !
They just love it when you brake the rules too, you get a nice little fine for all your efforts.
Don’t even bother complaining about it, just accept it and move on.
What’s new!
Yep …
just stay away from condos in Oilberta … nothing but trash IMO.
Renters have more rights then condo owners anyway … save until you can afford to buy something that doesn’t come with a list of rules ans stipulations and is run by a bunch of clowns that are so out to lunch you hope they are not breading spawn in their local trailer park.
sorry … bad taste in my mouth just now.
I know of one developer that sold parking spaces located on common property. There are only enough spaces for half the suites so they sold fast. The buyers do not have title to the parking space. Since the space was common to the complex and the condo corp has to maintain the space, the money should have stayed with the corporation rather than walking out with the developer when all the suites were finally sold.
So, what else is new? It’s all about the money for developers, not about quality, design, features or anything else that could possibly separate Bob’s fly-by-night Condos from Tom’s fly-by-day condos. Some developers are just more blatantly arrogant and uppity than others.
I don’t know how many people saw yesterday’s (July 16) troubleshooter episode. Julie Matthews investigated a developer (who’s name is amazingly close to the former name of Rexall Place) who dug the foundation too close to several people’s backyards. His response was “That’s not my problem. It’s not my job. We have subcontractors who do that and it’s their problem”.
That kind of arrogance needs to be stamped out like a bug. People need to stop buying from idiots like them. Then perhaps the quality of construction in this province will increase.
It’s funny you mention that as I have found Condo Boards or Corporations using Caveats for Condo Fee punishment when following The Condo Bylaw Act and the Land Titles Act (They apply under the Land Title Acts) and come to the conclusion that they are not following the Act they are breaking it and creating their own rules.
They can put a Caveat on your Condo but NOT for the Fee’s of the Common Property.
Yet some think they can charge $150 for penalty.
They have to painstakingly follow procedures like any other company you would owe.
(f) “common property” means so much of the parcel as is not comprised in a unit shown in a condominium plan, but does not include land shown on the condominium plan that has been provided for the purposes of roads, public utilities and reserve land under Part 17 of the Municipal Government Act;
“encumbrance” means any charge on land created or effected for any purpose whatever, inclusive of mortgage, mechanics’ or builders’ liens, when authorized by statute, and executions against land, unless expressly distinguished;
Condo Bylaw Act
39(1) In addition to its other powers under this Act, the powers of a corporation include the following:
(a) to establish a fund for administrative expenses sufficient, in the opinion of the corporation, for the control, management and administration of the common property, for the payment of any premiums of insurance and for the discharge of any other obligation of the corporation;
(d) to recover from an owner by an action in debt any sum of money spent by the corporation
(KEY WORD ABOVE SPENT)
(i) pursuant to a bylaw, or
(ii) as required by a municipal authority or other public authority,
Number 9 shows: the caveat as a mortgage under the Land Titles Act
Condo Bylaw Act
(7) A corporation may file a caveat against the certificate of title to an owner’s unit for the amount of a contribution levied on the owner but unpaid by the owner.
(8) On the filing of the caveat under subsection (7), the corporation has a charge against the unit equal to the unpaid contribution.
(9) A charge under subsection (8) has the same priority from the date of filing of the caveat as a mortgage under the Land Titles Act and may be enforced in the same manner as a mortgage.
The Land Title Acts shows:
Filing of caveat
130 A person claiming to be interested in land for which a certificate of title has been issued or in a mortgage or encumbrance relating to that land
The encumbrance is listed above in definitions and you can see it is relating to that land.
Common Property definition above states not the Units, so it appears they have no right to impose that fine of Caveat on anyone for Condo Fees.
I’ve found more but it’s from other Acts strengthening the definition of what a Caveat is and what a Condominium Fee is for.
Covey