Wednesday, 13 July 2011

How Strata Title Relates to Multi-Home Building Ownership

By Adam Ciboch


Do you own a condominium within a multi-building structure? What about a garage that is attached to others? Or how about a storeroom that is situated similarly? In any of these cases, the legal concept of strata title ownership comes into play.

Created with multi-level apartment buildings and subdivisions with shared areas specifically in mind, strata title is a type of property ownership. Since "strata" relates to apartments on different levels, the term in itself is descriptive.

Back in 1961, strata title was first created in a state in Australia. Since then, it has been adopted into law by other countries like Canada (British Columbia), Singapore, South Africa, Indonesia, Malaysia, Fiji, the Philippines, India and Dubai. Dealing with ownership of individual apartments in a large building complex is strata title's main purpose. Particularly in countries that have overcrowding concerns, it is an effective way for dealing with just that.

Schemes that make use of strata title involve two elements. The first is the individual lot that is owned by one specific owner. This is usually made up of an apartment, a garage or a storage area of some sort. The second element is common property. This element includes everything else located on the property that is not encompassed in the individual lot itself and can include common stairways, parking areas, driveways, roofs and yards, among other things.

Since overcrowding is an issue in a lot of these strata title scheme countries, disputes inevitably occur between property owners who share neighboring lots from time to time. The situation has been foreseen in several countries already, and action has been taken to respond to the needs of those in similar situations. Anticipating these issues in advance, three Australian jurisdictions have already set up procedures to resolve disputes of this matter, for example. The means that each jurisdictions uses to resolve their disputes tend to differ, although the goals of coming to an agreeable resolution remain the same. In the event that a jurisdiction does not have a dispute resolution scheme in place, the complainant must go directly to the Supreme Court. Despite their lack of time-effectiveness and the excessive costs to go through with them, some people feel this is their only means to resolve their dispute.




About the Author:



No comments: