Two Times, Two Different Games
The invitation to the assembly on 18 April states:
First convocation: 9:30 a.m.
For this assembly to be valid, more than half of all owners would need to be present, representing more than half of the total ownership shares. With over 100+ owners, many of them living in Germany, the UK, Scandinavia or Italy, this never happens. The first convocation always fails.
Second convocation: 10:00 a.m.
Thirty minutes later, the real game begins. There is no quorum. Whether 20 or 80 people are in the room, the assembly counts. Decisions now require only the majority of those actually present: more than half of the heads in the room, and at the same time more than half of the ownership shares in the room.
This is laid down in Art. 16.2 of the Ley de Propiedad Horizontal (LPH). It is not a flaw in the law — it is designed to prevent communities from being paralysed simply because owners fail to show up. But it also means: whoever is there, decides. For everyone.
What Actually Happened on 7 March
On 7 March, the last assembly took place. Hotel Catarina Playa. Second convocation. 10:00 a.m.
Of over 100 owners, not even a third was represented. Exactly 34 per cent of ownership shares. Two thirds of the community was absent. And yet, that morning decisions were taken on who would be president, what would happen with the bank accounts, who would be sued, and whether the old administrator would stay.
Two candidates stood for the presidency: William Enrique Reyes and Sonia Naranjo. 67 votes were cast. Three owners abstained.
William received 40 votes — representing 22.3 per cent of total shares.
Sonia received 27 votes — representing 9.9 per cent.
William won clearly. But the real story is not in the result. It is in the question: how do you get 40 votes when there are not 40 different people sitting in the room?
The Answer Is Proxies
Anyone who cannot attend the assembly in person may delegate their vote to someone else by proxy. That is normal and legal. But it changes everything.
William had 26 proxies in his pocket. 26 owners had delegated their vote to him. Together with the shares of those 26 owners, William alone controlled 16.1 per cent of total shares. Sounds modest? In a room where only 34 per cent was represented, it meant that nearly half of all the voting weight in the room was in the hands of a single person. To be precise: 47.5 per cent of all shares present. Before the assembly had even started.
On top of that came his strongest asset: his own company, Michaday S.L.U. — 6.15 per cent of total shares on its own. That is more than Sonia's entire proxy block combined. Together with the second-largest holding on William's side — Ramesh Jeswani at 2.65 per cent — these two alone accounted for 8.8 per cent. Of the 34 per cent present in the room, that was more than a quarter.
Beyond the 26 proxies, 14 further owners voted for William independently. They attended in person or sent their own representatives and then chose to vote for him on the spot. Among them Violeta Gugoasa, who alongside her own vote also brought Show y Casino (1.43%) and Tackur (0.92%).
William's block in numbers:- 26 proxies: 16.1% of total shares — 47.5% of shares present
- 14 further independent votes: 6.2% of total shares
- Michaday alone: 6.15% — the largest single holding of all those present
- William's share of voting-eligible shares overall: 65.7%
Sonia's Block: Fewer Proxies, More Independents
Sonia's 27 votes had a different structure. According to our information, "11 representados por Sonia Naranjo" were recorded — which includes Sonia herself. That means: Sonia in person plus 10 proxies. Together, these 11 accounted for just 1.9 per cent of total shares. Compared with William's 16.1 per cent from his 26 proxies, a vast difference.
But Sonia's strength lay elsewhere. 16 further owners voted for her — and these were not Sonia proxies. These people came themselves or sent their own representatives and then decided in the room to vote for Sonia. These are the votes you cannot count on in advance. They are decided on the day.
Who were these 16? For example, José Matos Pérez, who represented four owners: Alvimat S.A. (1.50% — one of the largest holdings in the room), Camilo Alvarez (0.70%), Dora Cabrera and Anselmo Kassen. Or Cristina B. y Marta B., who voted for Fund Grube (0.76%) and Girdhari & Chhabria (1.19%). Carmen Pinilla with Pama e Hijos (0.99%). Efrain Martin with Martin Lemes e Hijos (0.81%).
Sonia's block in numbers:- 11 representados (Sonia + 10 proxies): 1.9% of total shares
- 16 further independent votes: 8.0% — more than William's 6.2% in this category
- Largest holdings: Alvimat (1.50%), Girdhari (1.19%), Pama (0.99%), Martin Lemes (0.81%)
- Sonia's share of voting-eligible shares overall: 29.1%
The crucial difference: William controlled his votes before the assembly — 26 proxies collected in the days beforehand. Sonia depended more on people actually turning up and deciding to vote for her on the spot. On 7 March, that was not enough.
Why This Becomes a Trap
The law requires a double majority for every decision in second convocation: more than half of the heads in the room AND more than half of the shares in the room. This is meant to create balance — a single large owner should not be able to decide alone, but neither should a crowd of small owners simply outvote the large ones.
In theory, that sounds fair. In practice — when two thirds of the owners do not show up — it creates a system in which proxies decide everything.
Think of it this way: on 7 March, 34 per cent of the community was in the room. William alone controlled nearly half of that. He only needed a few independent votes and the double majority was secured. That is not fraud. That is mathematics. But it means: whoever collects the most proxies beforehand wins — not necessarily because they have the better arguments, but because the majority of owners do not show up.
The same principle works in both directions. If Sonia mobilises her independent supporters better on 18 April — the Matos group, Cristina B., Efrain Martin, Carmen Pinilla — and collects new proxies at the same time, the balance can shift.
What Is at Stake on Saturday
Item 3 on the agenda: Election of a new administrator and secretary.
The administrator is the person — or company — that manages C.C. Cita on a daily basis. Finances, contracts, maintenance, security, debt management. With a budget of nearly 880,000 euros (2025, draft, not approved) and 1.9 million euros in outstanding debts, this is no side issue.
It is about administration computers that have vanished. Bank accounts the community could not access. Thirty years of management by a single individual. Whoever is elected on Saturday will determine whether these problems are addressed — or whether everything continues as before.
Three Scenarios for 18 April
Scenario 1: Everything Stays as on 7 March
The same blocks, the same proxies. William brings his 26, Sonia her 10. The independent votes distribute similarly. Result: William achieves the double majority and chooses the new administrator.
Scenario 2: Sonia Closes the Gap — But Not Quite Enough
On 7 March, the gap in heads was 40 to 27 — thirteen votes. Sonia would need to flip or mobilise seven votes to overturn the head count: 34 to 33.
Seven votes — that does not sound like many. Seven owners who were absent last time and now attend. Or seven who reassign their proxy. Not impossible.
But even with a majority of heads, Sonia would face a problem: William's shares. Michaday (6.15%) and Ramesh Jeswani (2.65%) alone account for 8.8 per cent — on 7 March that was more than a quarter of all shares present. As long as those shares sit with William, Sonia can have more heads and still fail to pass a resolution. Because the double majority is not met.
The result: deadlock. Sonia has the heads, William has the shares. Nothing is approved. No administrator is elected. For a community with 1.9 million in debt, that means: the problems keep growing.
Scenario 3: Sonia Wants to Win, Not Just Block
For that she would need both — heads and shares. On 7 March she had 29.1 per cent of voting-eligible shares. The path to a share majority would only run through large owners who were absent last time or who switch sides. Owners with shares that offset the weight of Michaday.
Can Decisions Be Challenged?
Yes. Art. 18 of the Ley de Propiedad Horizontal gives every owner the right to challenge decisions in court. For instance if they breach the law or statutes, if they cause serious harm to the community, if they seriously disadvantage an individual owner, or if they were adopted fraudulently.
But there is a condition: anyone who is present on Saturday and votes against a resolution must have their objection recorded in the minutes. Without a recorded objection, there is no right to challenge. Deadline for those present: three months. For those absent: thirty days from notification of the minutes.