Statistically, tic disputes are relatively rare. Based on my experience with more than 3,000 joint group leases over the past 26 years, less than 3% of ICT groups need a lifetime dispute resolution. Tenants in common disputes, like all disputes with neighbours, are however disturbing and unpleasant, and it is understandable that the owners involved tend to complain frequently and vehemently to anyone listening. This phenomenon can cause these disputes to arise more often than they actually are. The most important element to minimize tenants in general disputes is an ICT agreement that is very specific to each landlord`s obligations and what other landlords can do after an infringement. Specificity is particularly important for the most common rent in common dispute areas: another important dispute resolution strategy is that each tenant must pay a relatively high down payment together. If a co-owner has more to lose, he tends to avoid the tic agreement and to favor compromise over struggle. In addition, a higher down payment increases the likelihood that the ICT group will recover all its losses and costs if it has to go through a forced sale process until closing. ICT buyers often question the problems they may face with these agreements and how they will enforce their agreements and resolve ownership disputes. This article will focus on these concerns.
(You`ll find answers to other frequently asked questions about ICT agreements in my article, Lease Contracts in Frequently Asked Questions.) The first step in implementing an ICT agreement is to document the infringement by gathering evidence. In the event of non-payment, the documentation of the infringement means that the payment was due at a given time and that the non-paying owner knew it was due. In the case of behavioural injuries, the documentation of the injury involves the collection of photos, recordings, witnesses or other concrete evidence. The next step is to prepare the written request or notification necessary to begin enforcing the ICT agreement, and following any new steps as soon as the agreement allows. In practice, the vast majority of tick disputes are resolved informally by the parties themselves, and almost all others are resolved through mediation. The success rate of condominium intermediation in our office exceeds 80%. But starting with formal measures, such as evidence-gathering and formal disclosure of violations, encourage the injuring owner to actively participate in informal requests for solutions or mediation and lay the groundwork for rapid and cost-effective implementation in the event of mediation failure. Most leases under joint agreements use forced selling as a primary enforcement mechanism. In the event of a forced sale, the tenant is sold either on the open market or to the other owners, in the common interest of the failing co-owner.
Agreements in which a failing co-owner simply loses ownership and investments are illegal, so the process of forced sale in an ICT agreement must be designed to ensure that the interests of the defaulting owner are sold for an amount equivalent to its fair value or that they are promoted on the open market. In addition, the failing owner must receive all the remaining products from the sale after paying the selling fees and the sums he owes to others. A well-written forced sale provision will also discuss this: if two or more people own, they automatically become a common lease, unless the deed determines another form of co-ownership. But the fact that the co-owners collectively own as tenants does not mean that they have exclusive occupancy rights over certain spaces. The property-type tic agreements that are the subject of this article constitute a relatively small and new subset of the large world of condominium leases.