Exclusive use is an interesting term. It is often assumed that if one “owns” an exclusive use area (“EUA”), one automatically has the sole right to use it and must carry out and pay for all work required to maintain it – but this is not the case. In sectional title schemes, exclusive use means that an owner can use, enjoy and benefit from a part of property that is co-owned by all owners in the scheme, a part of the “common property”. Both the owner who holds this right and the portion of the common property that is subject to the right must be clearly identified, so everyone is completely sure of exactly who may use exactly what areas. One of the reasons that this certainty is required is that owners who hold exclusive use rights are responsible for all the costs the body corporate incurs in respect of the EUA.
Exclusive use in the sectional title context is fundamentally an agreement amongst all the owners in the scheme that an identified portion of their jointly-owned property will be used only by a specified owner, or a defined group of owners. It is essential that the part of the common property and the relevant owners be clearly identified because in terms of the Sectional Titles Act, 1986 (“the Act”), these two issues determine who is responsible to carry out and to pay for maintenance and repair of the EUA. In terms of section 37(1)(j) it is the function of the body corporate to properly maintain the scheme’s common property. Section 44(1)(c) sets out an owner’s obligations, which are to repair and maintain a section but, in respect of an exclusive use area, to keep it neat and clean. The body corporate’s obligation to carry out maintenance of exclusive use areas is complemented by the obligation, in terms of section 37(1)(b) to recover the amounts it spends on such maintenance, from the owner(s) who hold the exclusive use rights.
Exclusive use rights are created and conferred in one of two ways, either as registered real rights or by way of a right conferred in terms of a scheme rule. The person holding the registered right has a certificate issued by the Registrar of Deeds, while the person holding the rule-based right is identified in an allocation schedule, usually as the owner from time to time of a specific section in the scheme, which schedule forms part of the text of the rule. Either way, there is certainty as to who holds the right.
EUAs subject to registered rights are surveyed and shown on the approved and registered sectional plan. The survey beacons are identified and described, the distances between them and their bearings from one another are listed in a schedule on the plan. Additionally, the extent of the EUA is often described in the notes to the sheet of the sectional plan in which the EUA is delineated; for example, the note might say that the exclusive use area extends to the inner surface of a surrounding wall. The area is numbered and its purpose described. The location of an EUA subject to rule-based rights, its identifying number, size and intended use are marked on a scale layout plan, which along with the allocation schedule forms part of the rule. In both cases there is certainty as to who holds the rights and the exact area of common property that is subject to the rights.
In a recent unreported case heard in the Durban High Court, Marguerite Anne Catherine de la Harpe v Body Corporate of Bella Toscana (judgement delivered by Chetty J on 28 October 2014) the issue was the responsibility for the cost of repair or replacement of a dangerously damaged common property garden wall. The sectional plan is referred to in paragraphs 13 and 15 of the judgment, indicating that it was inspected during the hearing, but it seems that the plan was not used to establish whether the wall was located entirely within the EUA, partly inside the EUA or entirely outside the EUA. These are the only three possibilities and a finding as to the location of the wall relative to the boundaries of the EUA should have led to clarity as to which of the parties was obliged to repair or replace the wall and which of them was obliged to pay for the works. It seems from the judgment that the judge made the award based on a finding that the existence of the wall benefited the owner concerned, rather than establishing to what extent, if any, the wall was subject to exclusive use rights and then applying the principles in the Sectional Titles Act as to who should carry out and pay for the work.
Article reference: Paddocks Press: Volume 10, Issue 1, Page 2.
Anton Kelly is an extremely knowledgeable specialist Sectional Title and HOA teacher and consultant. Having been the lead teacher on all the Paddocks courses for the last 5 years, Anton lives and breathes Sectional Title and HOA law, all day every day. There are not many issues he hasn’t come across before.
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution license.
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Graham Paddock on Body Corporate Functions: Insurance
- Graham Paddock on Spending body corporate funds
- Graham Paddock on The Levy Clearance Certificate: The Body Corporate’s Cheap & Effective Weapon
- Graham Paddock on The benefits of online sectional title meetings
- Heinz Wiesner on The benefits of online sectional title meetings
Archives
- 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
11 Comments.
I am more confused now after reading this than I was before.
What if the exclusive use is your yard and they send strange worker men in without letting you know? Isn’t that part of violation of Privacy?
Gooday I have read your article on EUAs with interest. Could you please clarify an issue for me. A jacaranda tree in the exclusive area of a unit is causing a problem and requires trimming to keep leaves, twigs from damaging the roof. Must the owner pay to have the tree trimmed or does the Body Corporate meet the costs. I understand that general maintenance of the EUA is for the account of the owner, but I am not sure about the tree. I would appreciate your input on this many thanks regards Gordon
Thank you for your comment. We would love to help but unfortunately do not give free advice. Here’s how we can help:
– We offer a Free Basics of Sectional Title 1-week short course. You’ll be able to ask your course instructor any related questions. Find out more here.
– We offer consulting via telephone for R390 for 10 minutes. Please call us on +27 21 686 3950.
– We have Paddocks Club, an exclusive online club, to help you get answers to your questions about community schemes. Find out more here.
Kind regards
Paddocks
Can you enclose off a section of common property with Exclusive use area. This does not conform to uniformity to the front of the complex. In this certain area the Chairman hangs his washing and also stores his washing machine and fridge. I have sent email to the managing agent and nothing has been done about it. I am not allowed to send a email to the Trustee as I am confusing the owners as I am not a trustee and they will take me to the Ombudsman. The other owners and trustees are not familiar with the sectional title act.
Hi Michelle,
Thank you for your comment. We would love to help but unfortunately do not give free advice. Here’s how we can help:
– We offer a Free Basics of Sectional Title 1-week short course. You’ll be able to ask your course instructor any related questions. Find out more here.
– We offer consulting via telephone for R390 for 10 minutes. Please call us on +27 21 686 3950.
– We have Paddocks Club, an exclusive online club, to help you get answers to your questions about community schemes. Find out more here.
Kind regards
Paddocks
Good Day Mr Kelly
Your article mentions the following “fundamentally an agreement amongst all the owners” – what would happen if one person at an AGM meeting votes against an owner having exclusive use of an area.
Hi Melanie,
Thank you for your comment. We would love to help but unfortunately do not give free advice. Here’s how we can help:
– We offer a Free Basics of Sectional Title 1-week short course. You’ll be able to ask your course instructor any related questions. Find out more here.
– We offer consulting via telephone for R490 for 10 minutes. Please call us on +27 21 686 3950.
– We have Paddocks Club, an exclusive online club, to help you get answers to your questions about community schemes. Find out more here.
Kind regards
Paddocks
Does this mean one exclusive use area can be ”owned” by more than one unit owner? Can different unit owners ”own” one exclusive use area?
In the STSMA, sections 37-48 are repealed, so is this advice still valid? Just trying to understand!
Hi Pooben,
Thank you for your comment. Please note that this article is from 2015. If you would like clarity on the current regulations, please email consulting@paddocks.co.za and the team will provide you with a no-obligation quote for their assistance with your query.
Kind regards
Paddocks Team