-
Thanks so much for your patience in helping me understand this. Our lack of understanding is causing a bit of stress.
Your reply is very reassuring although I'm slightly concerned now that by only giving you a snippet of that clause, I might have changed its meaning. Could I have one final question please and ask you to read the whole paragraph and confirm that my understanding is still correct:
So often as reasonably required to decorate the exterior of the Building in such a manner as shall be agreed by the majority of the tenants of the flats or failing agreement in the manner in which they were previously decorated or as near thereto as circumstances permit and in particular (but without prejudice to the generality of this covenant) will paint the exterior parts of the Building usually painted with two coats at least of good quality paint at least once in every four years.Btw, it's a south facing wall that hasn't been painted for almost 20 years.
Thanks again for your help!
Edit: I think that's the only place in the deed that it mentions a majority.
dinosaur-
Could I have one final question please and ask you to read the whole paragraph and confirm that my understanding is still correct:
So often as reasonably required to decorate the exterior of the Building in such a manner as shall be agreed by the majority of the tenants of the flats or failing agreement in the manner in which they were previously decorated or as near thereto as circumstances permit and in particular (but without prejudice to the generality of this covenant) will paint the exterior parts of the Building usually painted with two coats at least of good quality paint at least once in every four years.Yep, that does change things. I read that as meaning that the majority can decide how the exterior should be redecorated, not whether or not it should be redecorated. Even so, I think it's extremely unlikely that a judge would have any sympathy for a lessee who is objecting to the building being redecorated at someone else's expenses, particularly when it would need doing if it hasn't been painted for 20 years.
Brommers
Interesting. Usually trustees have to make decisions unanimously, but given that wording it would appear that you can make decisions about exterior decorating by majority. It's not clear whether that's a majority by share of ownership (50/25/25) of simply per flat, but either way, you've got a majority combined with the other nice flat owner. Sounds like his objections can be overruled.
Generally costs orders made against multiple parties are joint and several, so you're both/all liable for all of it, and it's up to you how to divvy it up. As for how you'd fund your own legal costs, that would depend on the wording of the leases (whether legal costs are recoverable as service charges) and the declaration of trust.
Seems staggeringly unlikely, frankly. You're doing something you're entitled to do, and redecorating the outside of the house in which he lives for free. If he took that to court, I expect he'd end up with a very angry judge and an order for costs against him, not you.