The owners’ meeting cannot divide up the outstanding amounts owed by defaulting owners
A dedicated cash fund must be set up unanimously for the new provision. The fact that substantial sums cannot be recovered cannot justify any other course of action
Key points
The resolution by which href="https://ntpluscondominio.ilsole24ore.com/art/chi-puo-convocare-l-assemblea-il-nuovo-amministratore-AJ5Vi2ZB">the condominium owners’ meeting, whilst approving the final accounts, allocates by majority vote among the owners who are not in arrears the amounts remaining unpaid by other owners, in breach of the legal principle of proportionality (Article 1123 of the Civil Code), unless there is a different unanimous agreement or an exceptional and urgent situation such as to justify the establishment of a specific cash fund.
The story
This was clarified by the Court of Vicenza in Judgment No. 1171, handed down on 9 September 2026, which upheld only in part the appeal lodged by two companies, owners of certain property units in a block of flats, against a resolution of the owners’ meeting, annulling it solely in respect of the agenda item approving the allocation amongst the non-defaulting co-owners of the sum of 80,000 euros, corresponding to to arrears accrued by other co-owners.
During the proceedings, the companies had challenged the 2023 final accounts, arguing, amongst other things, the unlawfulness of the general meeting’s decision which had included in the accounts – and apportioned amongst those co-owners who were up to date with their payments – outstanding contributions relating to other participants in the block of flats. On this point, the block of flats had admitted that the amount related to arrears deemed no longer recoverable and had argued that these sums had to be apportioned amongst the other flat owners.
The judges’ stance
The Court upheld the appeal on this specific point, citing the principle that, in the absence of a different unanimous agreement, the allocation of service charges must be carried out in accordance with the criteria of proportionality laid down in Article 1123 of the Civil Code, with the consequence that the general meeting is not permitted, by a majority decision, to impose on residents who are not in arrears the debt arising from service charges left unpaid by others.
A temporary exemption, he pointed out, may in theory be granted only where there are exceptional and urgent reasons, capable of averting serious harm to the entire block of flats, and always subject to the establishment of a special fund. In the case under consideration, these conditions were not found to have been met.
