ASOCIACION DE PROPIETARIOS DEL RESIDENCIAL DE MONTAÑA LOS ALTOS DE CERRO AZUL (APREMACA)

Quisiera informar a los participantes del Forum de algunos aspectos muy importantes de nuestra comunidad, y generar comentarios e ideas en búsqueda de posibles soluciones:

Deuda del TSM: Existe un grupo de propietarios que se aferran a las disposiciones de sus contratos para continuar pagando $3, $5, $8 ó $10 mensuales, negándose a asumir el TSM actual, mientras que el resto de nosotros pagamos los $25.00. Existe aún otro grupo de propietarios que no pagan ni agua, ni TSM. Varios de estos propietarios son también propietarios con condominios en la ciudad, pagando mayores TSM. Hemos estimado que la deuda acumulada de estos dos grupos está cerca de los 400 mil dólares y lo difícil del caso, es que la Administración no tiene la facultad legal para recuperar esa deuda, ni para obligar al primer grupo a asumir la cuota actual. Obviamente que esta situación incide en la disponibilidad de los fondos necesarios para el mantenimiento de las calles.

LEY 31 DE 18 DE JUNIO DE 2010: Esta es la nueva ley de Propiedad Horizontal (existen 2 versiones anteriores) y su artículo no.2, por primera vez se incorpora a las urbanizaciones privadas cerradas (tal como la nuestra). Este artículo esta siendo reglamentado para homologar las disposiciones sobre Asociaciones de Propietarios sin fines de lucro (tal como las 9 asociaciones que tenemos dentro de Cerro Azul). Esta nueva ley va a facultar a la Administradora con los instrumentos legales para cobrar, poner recargos, multar, solicitar cuotas especiales, regular servicios administrativos y reglamentar conflictos entre propietarios. También exige la creación de una Asociación de Propietarios y además fija un impuesto de registro igual al 0.25% (0.0025) del valor catastral de la propiedad tanto al propietario como al Promotor (sobre las calles y áreas comunes).

Pueden verlo en el link: http://www.gacetaoficial.gob.pa/pdfTemp ... 100618.pdf

We would like to inform all the participants of the Forum of some very interesting issues for our community, and generate comments and ideas for possible solutions.

TSM DEBT: There is a group of owners that cling on to their contract to continue to pay $3, $5, $8 or $10 dollars monthly, refusing to comply with the current TSM amount, while the rest of us are paying $25.00. There is still another group of owners that are not paying at all, neither water, nor TSM. We have estimated this outstanding debt close to $400,000 belonging to these two groups. Several of these owners are also owners of condominiums in the city, paying higher TSM. The difficult part of this, is that the Administration does not have the legal tools to collect this debt, nor to oblige the first group to pay the current TSM amount. Obviously that this situation has a direct impact on the Administration’s availability of necessary funds to provide good maintenance for the Cerro Azul streets.

LAW 31 OF JUNE 18 DE 2010: This new law of Horizontal Property (updated from old existing laws) incorporates in article 2 for the first time private closed urbanizations (gated communities as ours). This article is currently being re-addressed to incorporate the current legal status of No-Profit Home Owner Associations legislation into this law (like the existing 9 associations that we have in Cerro Azul).

This new law will facilitate the Administration by providing the appropriate legal instruments to collect, set fines, solicit special TSM, regulate administrative services and provide rulings for solving conflicts between neighbors. It also requires a Home Owner Association and sets a onetime registration tax equal to 0.25% of the registered property value (including any construction). The Developer is equally taxed on the rest of the Project (streets, social areas, club, etc).

See the link at: http://www.gacetaoficial.gob.pa/pdfTemp ... 100618.pdf

Los invitamos a expresar sus comentarios e ideas con el debido respecto hacia sus vecinos!

Terani Simons
Altos del Frente No.89
Miembro de PACAR

Are there debt collection services in Panama? Or does that too require the legal basis to collect bad debts?

Marco
El Centinela

It seems to me that nonpayment of the TSM is something Melo has learned to live with. I'm convinced there's little that can be done about it because no functioning entity has the authority to collect and, as another property owner commented, it may be more trouble than it is worth. In order to address the problem, the property owners will need to understand why the TSM isn't being collected and agree on a path forward. Also, until Melo thinks it is a big enough problem to act, there is not much incentive to talk about changes. A conversation with Melo about this subject would be useful.

122 El Fortín

I think that as long as the Melo Group can cover the deficit of unpaid dues by just increasing the TSM for those who do pay, this issue will never be resolved. Thus, although Melo Group has made some effort to collect overdue sums, they have no real incentive to do so. As long as the Property Owners' Associations remain dormant and in the hands of Melo Group, we owners have no way whatsoever to force people to pay or even to negotiate with them.

Bill
Lots142/143 El Torreón

Why isn't everybody paying TSM? How come it is possible to pay $3 instead of the $37.45 I'm paying every month? Want to go thru the gates and haven't payed TSM? Well, you're so out lo luck and can't go beyond these gates. That's how you collect the debts.
BTW, is everybody paying $37.45 like me or is it just me?

Welcome, Daniel -

Some owners have signed property deeds from years ago setting the TSM at low current prices. Apparently there was no method to allow for increasing fees along with inflation.

Another story is Melo tried to deny access through the garita to deadbeats, but it didn't hold up in court. Melo has to provide access to property even though it is a private road that all should be paying for.

What other ideas are there for Melo to collect appropriate TSM from everyone? How can we help Melo resolve this? That's my main concern.

This problem can be addressed whenever Melo wants to address it. The solution is to activate the property owner's associations and then the general assemblies can vote to raise the monthly quota. At that point the board of directors of each property owner's association has the right to use the legal system to collect the monthly maintenance. My view is that Melo gets enough money from those of us who pay voluntarily and they therefore don't have any incentive to activate the legal structure.

Es un tema duro, pero tiene solución si Melo quiere enfrentarlo. Uno, es activar las asociaciones como está en uno de estos mensajes.....pero se le da larga al status actual. Otro es que los propietarios morosos entren caminando, pero no así sus autos, ya que con $3.00, $5.00, $8.00, etc. etc. es imposible que estén contribuyendo estos propietarios para la reparación de calles, mantenimiento, portón de entrada, recorrido de vigilancia, etc. etc. y otros servicios que estamos pagando los propietarios.

La única calle de Altos del Frente está destruida e igual hay calles en las mismas condiciones de otras barriadas..... En febrero se nos dijo por escrito que se había comprado material y equipo, pero se terminó la época seca y llego la época lluviosa y seguimos igual.

Es necesario que los morosos asuman su responsabilidad y paguen el atraso y la cuota correcta.

Saludos......Iris de Simons No. 89 El Frente....

Well, thanks to this forum I just read my neighborhood's association related documentation and it seems like Melo is also part of the Board of Directors. I'm almost positive he's part of that board for the rest of the community. If this is the case, it shouldn't be a problem to act legally on behalf of the rest of the owners. I'm not a lawyer, but it doesn't seem to complex in my opinion.

Best,

First of all we need to distinguish between the promoter and the administration. I'll call Melo the promoter and Vistamares the administration to avoid confusion. Melo, the promoter, created each of the 9 developments, sold the lots and then created the property owner's associations as well as named themselves the administrator and the initial board of directors. This is normal for a promoter to do because you have to start somewhere. The bylaws state that, among other things, there has to be a general assembly of the property owners to elect a new board during the last 15 days of November. What is not normal, as I understand it, is that the initial board of directors never called the general assembly meetings to elect the new board of property owners. This means that Melo, as promoter, is, in my opinion, in a conflict of interest situation because the promoter maintains control of the property owner's association and the administration as well as dictates the monthly fees without any property owner involvement. Melo should, in my view, convene the general assembly for each of the 9 associations and the property owners should elect and register a new board comprised of property owners. The new board can convene a future general assembly meeting to approve a monthly maintenance fee that will be collectable because the general assembly has the power to set the fees and the properly constituted board will have the power to collect the fees. As it stands, Melo increases the fees and fewer and fewer owners pay. How can this be sustainable?

What services the fees cover would, of course, be part of the discussion of how much monthly maintenance the property owners are willing to approve. Why, after 25 years, Melo continues to not meet the obligations set out in the bylaws that they wrote and had approved by the government remains a mystery.