Boundaries between two exclusive use areas and financial responsibility
By Jennifer Paddock
When it comes to determining who is financially responsible for repairs and maintenance in sectional title schemes, boundaries are everything. This is because boundaries determine the nature of the property, and the nature of the property determines who must pay to repair it.
In sectional title schemes the nature of the property can be divided into three categories. The property could be:
- part of a section; or
- an area of unregulated common property; or
- a part of the common property that is subject to exclusive use rights.
As I explained in my article ‘Who pays for that pipe?’, the general rules relating to financial responsibility in sectional title are that:
- owners pay expenses associated with their individual sections [section 13(1)(c) Sectional Title Schemes Management Act 8 of 2011 (the ‘STSM Act’)];
- the body corporate pays for unregulated common property expenses [section 3(1)(l) STSM Act]; and
- The body corporate bears the operational responsibility of arranging maintenance and repairs of exclusive use areas but the holder/s of the exclusive use rights must pay the associated costs [section 3(1)(l) read with the proviso to section 3(1)(c) STSM Act].
So now you have the theory of who pays for what, but in practice it’s not always easy to determine where one part of the property ends and another part begins. This is where boundaries play a key role.
Boundaries between sections, and between sections and common property, tend to be easier to determine because they are indicated on the scheme’s sectional plan and because the Sectional Titles Act 95 of 1986 (the ‘ST Act’) directs us in terms of median lines and what those lines run through.
But boundaries of exclusive use areas, particularly rule-based exclusive use areas, can be tricky to define.
The boundaries of an exclusive use area created in terms of section 27 of the ST Act are properly surveyed and shown on the scheme’s sectional plan. Regulation 5(1)(m) made under the ST Act provides further guidance by stating that the common boundary between an exclusive use area and a section or common property is, in the case of physical features “the median line of the dividing floor, wall, ceiling, fence or other similar feature”, unless the boundaries of the exclusive use area have been described in a different manner on the sectional plan.
The boundaries of an exclusive use area created in terms of the scheme’s rules (under sections 10(7) and (8) of the STSM Act) must be shown on a layout plan drawn to scale, which is attached to the rule. The layout plan must show the position of the exclusive use area and it must state the purpose for which the exclusive use area may be used.
Let’s look at an example that came up in Paddocks Club recently to illustrate the complexities that pop up with boundaries in practice:
A sectional title scheme has exclusive use garden areas adjacent to the sections. The gardens are next to each other, separated by fences. These fences need repairs. Who pays?
In order to properly answer this question we need to ascertain where the boundaries of the exclusive use garden areas are.
If these are registered exclusive use gardens we would consult the scheme’s sectional plan and unless indicated otherwise we would assume that the exclusive use areas extend to the median line of the dividing fence [Reg 5(1)(m) ST Act].
But what if these are rule-based exclusive use areas and the layout plan attached to the exclusive use rule isn’t particularly clear as to whether the exclusive use areas extend to the midpoint of the dividing fence or whether the exclusive use areas extend only up to the fences, meaning that the fences remain unregulated common property?
If you find yourself in this situation, my view is that, unless it makes sense not to, the default position relative to boundaries of registered exclusive use areas under Regulation 5(1)(m) to the ST Act should be applied. The logic being that it does not make sense for the body corporate (i.e. all owners) to be financially responsible for something in the middle of two exclusive use areas which effectively only benefits the holders of the exclusive use rights on either side. So, unless the layout plan attached to the rule makes it clear that there is a strip of unregulated common property between two exclusive use areas created in terms of rules, I suggest one should assume that there is a single boundary line between them.
To become an expert in body corporate finances join our Advanced Sectional Title Financial Management Masterclass starting 17 April 2023.
Article reference: Paddocks Press: Volume 18, Issue 2.
Jennifer Paddock is a dual-qualified lawyer with experience working as a strata title managing agent and solicitor in New South Wales. Prior to this, she served as a specialist sectional title attorney and practice manager at Paddocks for five and a half years. She brings a wealth of knowledge and expertise to the Paddocks team. Contact her at consulting@paddocks.co.za.
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution license.
Recent Posts
Archives
- November 2024
- October 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- February 2008
- February 2007
Recent Comments