A Comparative Analysis of the Litigation Qualifications of the Mainland Owners’ Committee and the Hong Kong Owners’ Court Association in the Common Dispute Cases
Main Article Content
Keywords
owner’s committee, owner’s legal corporation, litigation qualification, common parts, comparative study
Abstract
There are frequent disputes in residential communities in the Chinese mainland regarding property encroachment and illegal construction. The collective rights protection efforts by the homeowners face procedural obstacles. The core issue lies in the fact that the Civil Code of China does not clearly define the complete civil litigation subject qualification. In contrast, the Building Management Ordinance of Hong Kong grants the homeowners’ legal committee an independent legal person status and clear litigation qualifications, resulting in higher efficiency in rights protection. This article employs a comparative research method, analyzing the litigation qualifications of property owners’ organizations in the two regions from dimensions such as legal basis, legal person status, and property liability. The study reveals that the main difference between the two regions lies in that the mainland law does not clearly define the litigation qualifications of the owners’ committee, while the Hong Kong corporation enjoys the legal litigation qualifications; this difference stems from the different legislative logics of the two regions. Based on this, this paper proposes a path to improve the property rights protection system for property owners in the Chinese mainland. It constructs a mechanism for the exclusive property rights and liability assumption of the property owners’ committee, clarifies their status as an unincorporated organization and their litigation qualifications, and simplifies the authorization procedures for litigation. This research can provide theoretical and practical references for the improvement of the property rights protection system for property owners in the Chinese mainland.
References
- [1] Yuan, J. (2023). Research on the legal status of owners’ committees [Doctoral dissertation, Jilin University].
- [2] Peraria, H. (2024). Standing for change: Associational standing as an aggregational mechanism in tenants’ rights. Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights and Social Justice, 31(1), 165.
- [3] Kennedy, E. R., & de Haan, E. H. (2004). Litigation involving the developer, homeowners’ associations, and lenders. Real Property, Probate and Trust Journal, 39(1), 1.
- [4] Scheinkman, A. D. (1974). Condominium class actions. St. John’s Law Review, 48(4), 1168.
- [5] Culbertson, S. (2022). Your HOA does not work for you: Why HOAs are not agents and do not owe fiduciary duties. Oklahoma City University Law Review, 47(1), 113.
- [6] Powers, M. T. (1986). Homeowner association standing in California: A proposal to expand the role of the unit owner. Santa Clara Law Review, 26(3-4), 619.
- [7] Chute, C. (1983). Personal liability for directors of nonprofit corporations in Wyoming. Land and Water Law Review, 18(1), 273.
- [8] Hayward, S. B. (1988). Frances T. v. Village Green Owners Association: Liability of condominium associations and boards of directors for criminal acts of third persons. Pacific Law Journal, 19(2), 377.
- [9] Qu, K. (2024). Research on improving the owners’ committee system in China [Doctoral dissertation, Tianjin University of Finance and Economics].
- [10] Xu, F. (2024). Research on the legal status of owners’ committees [Doctoral dissertation, Guangxi Minzu University]. https://doi.org/10.27035/d.cnki.ggxmc.2024.000187.
- [11] Yang, Z. (2023). Research on the legal status of owners’ committees [Doctoral dissertation, Inner Mongolia University]. https://doi.org/10.27224/d.cnki.gnmdu.2023.001273.
Article Sidebar
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.