17 decide for everyone. Was the January meeting even lawful?

22 present, 17 with a vote, one holding a third of the power

According to the official minutes, 22 people attended. Five of them had no voting rights due to arrears. That leaves 17 voting owners with a combined coefficient of 7.047. In other words: a vanishingly small minority decided the future of the entire community.

Of those 17, a single representative — Don José Antonio Matos Pérez — held the votes of two entities: Chhabria Investments (coefficient 1.190) and Alvimat S.L. (coefficient 1.497). Combined: 2.687 — that is 38% of all votes present.

At that same meeting, he was unanimously elected interim president of the community.

Convocation: what the law requires

The Ley de Propiedad Horizontal (Art. 16) stipulates that notice of a General Meeting must be served on each owner individually. The statutes of C.C. Cita, in accordance with Art. 9 LPH, require that this notification be made in a verifiable manner — normally by certified mail or an equivalent method that provides proof of receipt.

In other words: a notice on the community board is not enough. A generic email is not enough. Every owner must receive an individual convocation, with the agenda, with sufficient time to prepare and attend.

Were all owners notified?

The minutes don't say. There is no evidence that certified letters were sent. No list of owners notified. No signed receipts. The minutes state only that the convocation was carried out "by the Secretary-Administrator with the approval of the Vice-President" — but not how and not to whom.

In a community of hundreds of owners, many of whom live off the island or abroad, the question is unavoidable: did everyone receive notice? Or were only some informed?

This raises serious doubts about whether the convocation was carried out in accordance with what the law and the statutes require. And if that can be documented, the January meeting would be challengeable.

If the January meeting was invalid, what happens next?

The consequences of a defective convocation do not stop at the January meeting. If that meeting were declared void, it would trigger a chain of invalidity:

This is not speculation. It is what Article 18 of the Ley de Propiedad Horizontal provides: resolutions of the General Meeting may be challenged when there are procedural defects in the convocation. The deadline for challenging formal defects is three months from notification of the minutes.

Were all owners notified?

This is the fundamental question. It is not about whether the meeting was legal "on paper" — on second convocation, any number of attendees is sufficient. It is about whether all owners had the opportunity to participate.

If the answer is no — if owners can prove they were never notified and therefore could not attend — then every decision made on 24 January is in question. And everything that follows from it as well.

The administration should be able to demonstrate, with signed receipts or postal certificates, that every owner was notified. If it cannot, the community has a far bigger problem than unpaid fees.

On 7 March: attend, vote, participate

Regardless of the outcome of the validity question around the January meeting, on 7 March you have the opportunity to make your voice heard. The Ordinary General Meeting includes the election or re-election of the Board of Directors. Attend in person or delegate your vote.

Your unit. Your money. Your vote.