Our Tribunals have traditionally been divided as to the consequences to be attributed to abstentions for the purpose of calculating votes in resolutions requiring some kind of majority, given that the legal uncertainty in this respect allowed a threefold response:

I.- to consider that those who abstain are not taken into account for the purposes of calculating votes or coefficients ( Asturias 23-1-07, Jaen 30-1-07, etc.).

II.-        To understand that these abstentions are added to the positive majority (Barcelona 25.1.05, Leon 2-5-06, Albacete 5-1-07, Asturias 3-5-07, etc.).

III.-       Consider that they do not represent a negative or positive vote, but they do count for the purposes of calculating coefficients (Valencia 8-5-06).

On the other hand, with regard to agreements requiring unanimity, the majority doctrine has understood that abstentions did not prejudice the unanimity of the rest, given the lack of specification of the concept of unanimity in Art. 17.1 LPH, which was silent on the matter.

As was to be expected from such a deficient and botched reform of the LPH as that approved by Law 8/2013, the Law has not considered it appropriate to put an end to this legal uncertainty by clearly determining the effects of abstentions and their possible computation, fundamentally with regard to agreements that require unanimity.

In effect, the new law now states that unanimous resolutions will require: “Unanimity of the total number of owners representing the total number of participation quotas (current Art. 17.6 LPH).

With all due respect, although some authors have come to consider that this second requirement relating to the total of the quotas does not constitute a redundancy with respect to the unanimity of the owners, in my opinion, rather than a redundancy, it clearly demonstrates the absolute lack of knowledge that the government has in relation to the system of voting and adoption of agreements by the communities of owners.

I would love to be able to apologise for such severe criticism of the drafters of this legal reform, but for that to happen, someone would have to explain in which cases the unanimity of the owners can be obtained without the unanimity of the quotas.  

In any case, if it can be deduced from the wording of the new Art. 17 that the adoption of a unanimous agreement would require the total number of votes and coefficients of the community, it could be understood that in the event of someone abstaining, the agreement adopted with the vote of all the others could not be understood as unanimous.

Following the same line of argument, unanimous agreements could not be approved in communities with defaulters either, unless they are also granted a vote.

As we can see, the Lawr is determined to ensure that the literalness of its laws always leads us to nonsense, so only time will tell how our majority jurisprudence will end up considering the legal effects of abstentions.