Series: Condominium Property in Costa Rica · Part 2 of 5

Who Decides in a Condominium: The Owners' Assembly, the Administrator, and the Bylaws

How the owners' assembly is called and votes, what majorities the law requires, what the administrator can do, and how to challenge a resolution in Costa Rica.

By Dowglas Dayán Murillo Murillo October 19, 2026 43 min read Law reviewed as of October 19, 2026

Contents

1. The rules that govern a condominium
2. The Owners’ Assembly and what it decides
3. How the assembly is called and held
4. Who votes and how much each vote counts
5. The majorities in Article 27
6. How the condominium bylaws are amended today
7. Minutes, finality of resolutions, and legalized books
8. The condominium administrator
9. The board of directors, the oversight officer, and the owner who acts alone
10. How to challenge an assembly resolution
11. What to review in your condominium

Translated from the Spanish original. If there is any discrepancy between the two versions, the Spanish text prevails. Read the original in Spanish.

One Friday afternoon, a notice calling an extraordinary assembly shows up in the residents’ group chat of a high-rise condominium in San José. The meeting will be held by video call in ten days, and the agenda has three items: raising the maintenance fee, replacing the property management company, and amending the bylaws to ban short-term rentals. You cannot connect. A month later you receive the minutes: the assembly met on second call with owners holding a quarter of the condominium’s value, everything was approved, and the bylaws are already in the hands of a notary public. Was that notice valid? Were those votes enough to change the bylaws? Do you have to pay the new fee in the meantime? How long do you have to object, and before whom? Questions like these almost always reach a lawyer too late. This study explains how a condominium is governed in Costa Rica under the rules in force in October 2026: what the Owners’ Assembly (Asamblea de Condóminos) decides and how it must be called and vote, what majorities the law requires after the 2022 and 2025 amendments, what the administrator may do, what role the board of directors and the oversight officer play, and how an unlawful resolution is challenged.

This is the second part of the series “Condominium Property in Costa Rica.” The unit and the common areas are covered in Owning a Condominium Unit; fee collection, in Condominium Fees; sanctions, in Living in a Condominium; and rentals, in Renting in a Condominium.

The rules that govern a condominium

Before turning to the assembly, you need to know which rules govern it, because nearly every governance dispute starts with someone reading only one of them. The regime is built in layers, and each layer must respect the one above it.

The first layer is the Condominium Property Regulatory Law (Ley Reguladora de la Propiedad en Condominio), Law 7933 of 1999, in its current version of March 16, 2026. Articles 24 to 34 govern the assembly, the administration, and the internal bylaws. Of the law’s five amendments, four bear on this study: Law 8278 of 2002, which organized the condominium’s books (Articles 28 and 32 bis); Law 8984 of 2011, which assigned their legalization to the Real Property Registry (Registro Inmobiliario) (Article 32 bis); Law 10229 of 2022, which changed the majorities in Article 27; and Law 10746 of 2025, which authorized virtual assemblies (Articles 24 and 25).

The second layer is the law’s Executive Regulations (Executive Decree 45214-MIVAH-MEIC-TUR), in force since January 19, 2026, which repealed Decree 32303 of 2005 (Article 103 of Decree 45214). Most of its text deals with plans, roads, and minimum areas, but its chapter on the “Operation of the Condominium” (Articles 86 to 94) governs representation, accountability, notice of meetings, minutes, the finality of resolutions, and virtual assemblies. Its Transitional Provisions I and II provide that projects already in process, and “the required modifications” in existing condominiums, remain under the prior decree. In our view, those provisions refer to physical and procedural modifications (plans, areas, properties), so the operating rules in Articles 86 to 94 have applied since January 19, 2026, to condominiums that already existed as well; for projects that were in process, the question is less clear, and the wording of Transitional Provision II allows other readings. The point is developed in the study Owning a Condominium Unit.

The third layer belongs to each individual condominium: the deed of establishment and the condominium bylaws (Reglamento de Condominio y Administración), which the law requires to be included in that deed (Article 4 of Law 7933). The decree defines the bylaws as the instrument that “complements and specifies” the law and the Executive Regulations according to the features of each condominium (Article 3.43 of Decree 45214). The bylaws have a required minimum content: how the administrator is appointed and removed, contributions to common expenses, how often and how the assembly is called and who presides over it, the use of common property, sanctions and dispute-resolution mechanisms, the rules for converting units into parent properties, and facades (Article 33 of Law 7933). They may create additional rights and obligations, but they may not contradict the law or undermine each unit’s independent use and enjoyment (Article 18 of Decree 45214). Below all of this sits the Civil Code, which applies wherever the special law is silent: agency, liability, nullity.

The condominium as a legal actor

Henry Campos Vargas, writing in the 2006 book by the Chair of Property Law (Cátedra de Derechos Reales) at the University of Costa Rica, argued that the condominium’s legal personality had been born in practice, because the courts accepted lawsuits filed in its name and the Registry assigned it a corporate tax ID number (cédula jurídica). The essays in that book were written in 2000 and 2001, before almost all of the amendments discussed here. Today’s law still does not declare that legal personality, but Decree 45214 largely confirms Campos’s view: it defines the administrator as the person who holds “the legal representation” of the condominium (Article 3.1) and grants the administrator its judicial and extrajudicial representation (Article 88). In practice, the condominium acts, contracts, and litigates through its governing bodies: the assembly and the administrator.

The Owners’ Assembly and what it decides

Of those two bodies, the assembly is the one in charge. Decree 45214 calls it “the supreme body of the condominium” (Article 3.13), and the law gives it broad, residual authority: it is responsible for “resolutions on matters of common interest not included within the powers and duties of the administrator” (Article 24 of Law 7933). Put differently, anything the law or the bylaws do not entrust to the administrator belongs to the assembly, and even what the administrator does within the scope of the administrator’s powers may be modified or revoked by the assembly (Article 31 of Law 7933).

The Owners’ Assembly is made up of the owners of the units (fincas filiales), whom the decree calls unit owners, whether they are owners in fee or concession holders (Article 3.27 of Decree 45214). It must meet “at least once a year” (Article 24 of Law 7933). That annual meeting has mandatory business: hearing the administrator’s report and the accounts the administrator presents, approving the year’s expense budget, and specifying “the means of contributing the funds needed to cover it” (Article 26 of Law 7933). That is where the condominium fee comes from, and the assembly must also approve it (Article 87 of Decree 45214); how the fee is calculated, collected, and disputed is the subject of the study Condominium Fees.

In addition to the annual meeting, the owners may hold as many extraordinary assemblies as needed; the law names them when it authorizes both kinds to be held virtually (Article 24 of Law 7933). They are for matters that cannot wait: work that exceeds the administrator’s powers, replacing an administrator who resigned, amending the bylaws.

What the assembly decides binds everyone: “What is agreed by the Assembly binds all owners” (Article 26 of Law 7933), including those who were absent and those who voted against it. No condominium could be run without that binding force, but it comes at a cost to dissenters: if they do not challenge a resolution in time, they are bound by it even if it is unlawful. That is why what follows deals with how a resolution is validly formed and how one that is not can be attacked.

How the assembly is called and held

The validity of a resolution begins with the notice of meeting. A poorly called assembly produces resolutions exposed to nullity, however sound they may be.

Who may call a meeting

The administrator calls the assembly, whether in person or virtual, but so may “the owners who represent at least one-third of the value of the condominium” (Article 25 of Law 7933). That third is measured by the value of the units stated in the deed, not by the number of people. If the administrator has died or been removed, the decree directs the unit owners to call a meeting “under the terms set forth in the LRPC” to appoint a temporary successor (Article 90 of Decree 45214), which in practice means gathering that one-third of the value. Who presides over the meeting, and how the presiding officer is chosen, is set by the bylaws (Article 33(c) of Law 7933).

How much advance notice, and with what documents

The law does not set how far in advance notice must be given; it leaves that to the bylaws, which must govern “the manner of calling it” (Article 33(c)). Many bylaws do so, sometimes with very short periods. For those that say nothing, Decree 45214 supplies a default rule: notice must be given “at least fifteen calendar days before the date set for the meeting,” not counting the day of publication or the day of the assembly (Article 91 of Decree 45214). The same article adds an obligation that is often forgotten: during those fifteen days, “the documents related to the assembly’s agenda shall be available to the unit owners.” If a budget is to be approved, the budget must be available; if the bylaws are to be amended, so must the text of the amendment.

This has changed a great deal since the 2006 book. Roxana Sánchez Boza, writing in that book, proposed model bylaws that allowed extraordinary assemblies to be called on twenty-four hours’ notice, and the model annexed to the book provided for three days. At the time there was no default period. Today, if the bylaws are silent, the fifteen calendar days of Article 91 of the decree apply; if they set a period, that period governs, but one so short that owners cannot learn of the meeting and prepare for it may, in our view, be challenged as an infringement of each owner’s right to participate.

The law does not expressly say that the assembly must confine itself to the agenda, but Article 91 of the decree presupposes an agenda known in advance. In our view, a resolution on a matter that was not in the notice is vulnerable, because those who were absent did not know it would be decided.

The second call

To hold the assembly, a quorum is required. On first call, the quorum consists of votes representing “a minimum of two-thirds of the value of the condominium”; on second call, “the quorum will be reached with any number of attendees” (Article 24 of Law 7933). The law does not say how much time must pass between the first and second calls, or whether both can be announced in the same notice. That is left to the bylaws. If the bylaws are silent, the prudent course, in our view, is for the notice to announce both, with the advance notice required by Article 91 of the decree and a clear time for the second call; even so, there is some risk of a challenge if the bylaws do not provide for it.

As discussed below, however, being able to hold the assembly with few attendees does not mean that those few can approve anything they like: according to the only verified appellate decision that has expressly ruled on the point, majorities are calculated on the total value of the condominium.

Virtual assemblies

Since September 25, 2025, when Law 10746 was published, the law has allowed ordinary and extraordinary assemblies to be held “virtually through the use of technological means” (Article 24 of Law 7933). The permission is not unconditional. For a virtual assembly to be valid, these requirements must be met:

• the medium must guarantee “comprehensive, multidirectional, real-time interaction” among the members of the body and everyone participating (Article 24 of Law 7933);
• techniques must be used that allow “the simultaneous transmission of audio, video, and data,” in keeping with the principles of simultaneity, collegiality, and deliberation (Article 24);
• the notice must expressly state that the assembly is virtual and specify how unit owners may access it and verify their identity (Article 24; the law says agremiados (“members of a professional association”), a word borrowed from the legislation on professional associations, which should be read as unit owners);
• the notice rules of the law, the decree, and the bylaws must be followed (Article 94(b) of Decree 45214);
• the minutes must record “the format in which it was held and the technological means used” (Article 94(b)).

The bylaws or a resolution of the assembly may set their own rules, provided the medium ensures participation, simultaneity, interactivity, and the integrity of the communication (Article 94(a) of Decree 45214). Law 10746 ordered that regulations be issued within three months (sole transitional provision), a deadline that, counted from publication, expired at the end of December 2025; as of October 19, 2026, SINALEVI shows no such regulations. Nor can Article 94 of Decree 45214 be treated as those regulations: the decree was signed on August 7, 2025, before the law, although it was published afterward; it governs the same format, but it is not formally the law’s implementing regulation. In our view, the law applies directly, because its requirements are sufficient on their own, and Article 94 supplements it to the extent it does not contradict it.

Two consequences follow. A vote by email, an online form, or a messaging group does not allow simultaneous audio and video or real-time deliberation, and in our view is not a virtual assembly. And although the law does not mention hybrid assemblies, with some unit owners in the clubhouse and others connected remotely, in our view they are valid if those participating remotely do so with the safeguards of Article 24 and the notice announces it. This is a view held with moderate confidence: there is no verified case law on virtual assemblies held under the new law.

Who votes and how much each vote counts

Once the assembly convenes, the question is who votes and with what weight. The law answers with a rule that surprises many owners: votes are counted neither by person nor by unit, but by value. “Each owner shall be entitled to a number of votes equal to the percentage that the value of the owner’s property represents in the total of the condominium” (Article 24 of Law 7933). That percentage appears in the deed of establishment, which must state the total value of the condominium, the value of each unit, and its proportion of the total (Article 2(f) of Law 7933). In a horizontal condominium in Heredia with forty identical houses, each house will carry the same weight; in a San José building with apartments of different sizes and commercial spaces on the ground floor, the owner of a commercial space may have more votes than the owner of two apartments combined.

That value should not be confused with area. Each owner’s interest in the common property is measured by the percentage that the area of the owner’s unit represents (Article 9 of Law 7933), while voting is measured by value (Article 24). In most condominiums the two percentages are the same, but not necessarily, and where they differ, what counts for voting is the value set in the deed. Percentages are discussed in the study Owning a Condominium Unit.

Co-owners, usufructuaries, and sub-condominiums

The law assumes one owner per unit. Campos called this the “single-owner paradigm” and considered it one of the law’s major flaws, because it does not say what happens when a unit has several co-owners or a usufructuary. The criticism still stands: neither the law nor the decree says who votes for a co-owned unit. The bylaws do, and if they are silent, the sensible course is for the co-owners to designate a common representative in writing, as Campos recommended. His position that a usufructuary does not vote, unless the bare owner grants a power of attorney, also retains its force.

For condominiums of condominiums, a solution did emerge. Campos proposed that a sub-condominium vote through a common representative, and the decree adopted that approach: the units of a sub-condominium vote in the assembly of the master condominium “jointly through the representative of the sub-condominium,” and qualified majorities or unanimity are required only in the assembly of the respective condominium, not in those of the linked sub-condominiums (Article 93 of Decree 45214).

Tenants and voting by proxy

A tenant is not a unit owner and does not vote in their own right. The General Law on Urban and Suburban Leases (Ley General de Arrendamientos Urbanos y Suburbanos), Law 7527, grants tenants the right to “participate, without a vote, in the deliberations of the condominium owners’ assembly,” and allows the landlord, when absent, to authorize the tenant in writing to vote on matters “directly related to the use of the dwelling or premises the tenant occupies and the services the tenant uses” (Article 25 of Law 7527). The scope of that authorization and the tenant’s other rights are explained in the study Renting in a Condominium.

Outside that case, Law 7933 does not govern representation of one owner by another at the assembly; it leaves the matter to the bylaws. If the bylaws are silent, in our view the general agency rules of the Civil Code apply, and the prudent course is a written power of attorney that identifies the principal, the unit, and the assembly, and that is referenced in the minutes, because the decree requires the minutes to record “the documents supporting the participation of the unit owners” (Article 92 of Decree 45214).

Some bylaws strip delinquent owners of their voice and vote. The Second Civil Court of Appeals of San José, in decision 552-2023, annulled such an amendment, approved in 2020 by a majority of those present, because the law at the time required unanimity to change the bylaws. It did not say whether taking away a delinquent owner’s vote is valid in itself; that question remains open.

The majorities in Article 27

Knowing who votes leads to knowing how many votes are needed. Article 27 of Law 7933, as worded by Law 10229 (La Gaceta, June 28, 2022), sets three levels of majority and a rule that protects the minority against a dominant owner. The table sorts resolutions by the majority they require, together with other provisions of the law that set their own majorities.

Required majority	Resolutions	Provision
Unanimity of all owners	Changing the general purpose of the condominium; renouncing the condominium regime; encumbering or transferring the condominium as a whole; acquiring common property, changing its use, or deciding how it is used when doing so involves reducing or eliminating green areas or parks	Art. 27(a) and (b)(3); Art. 36
Two thirds of the total value	Changing the specific use of a unit; building new floors or basements, or excavating; acquiring common property, changing its use, or deciding how it is used; authorizing the lease of common property; approving partial or total reconstruction; changing the proportional area of the units; changing the clauses of the deed of establishment or the bylaws	Art. 27(b); Art. 11 (for reconstruction, see also Art. 37)
Two thirds of the value	Useful improvements to common property	Art. 14(b)
Additional requirement in the cases of subsection (b)	If a single owner holds at least 50% of the total value, 50% of the remaining votes present at the assembly are also required	Art. 27, final paragraph of subsection (b)
Majority of the value of the condominium	Any other resolution: budget and fee, appointment of the administrator, necessary improvements	Art. 27(c); Arts. 14(a), 26, and 29
Simple majority of the unit owners at the assembly	In social-interest condominiums that already existed when Law 10882 was published (April 20, 2026), dedicating streets, sidewalks, parks, community facilities, and services to public use	Art. 39

What changed in 2022

Before Law 10229, subsection (a) also required unanimity to change the proportional area of the units and to change the clauses of the deed of establishment or the bylaws. The amendment moved those two cases to subsection (b), so that two-thirds of the total value is now enough. It added, on the other hand, a unanimity requirement for any decision that reduces or eliminates green areas or parks, and in subsection (c) it replaced “value of the building” with “value of the condominium.” Subsection (b), for its part, still refers to the “total value of the building,” which is read as the total value of the condominium.

Arturo Pacheco Murillo, writing in the 2006 book by the Chair of Property Law at the University of Costa Rica, called the unanimity requirement in Article 27 “absolutely undemocratic,” because it allowed the owner of a small unit to veto resolutions everyone needed. Law 10229 partly proved him right: unanimity was kept for matters that go to the essence of the regime, to which green areas were added in 2022. The Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), in decision 2336-2002, had held that the unanimity requirement in former subsection (a), which at the time covered amending the bylaws and changing the proportional area, was necessary, suitable, and proportionate, because those provisions “seek to preserve the very nature of the horizontal property regime.” The Chamber held that unanimity was reasonable, not that the Constitution required it; in our view, that is why the legislature was free to lower it in 2022. What matters to an owner is what the law requires today.

The rule for an owner holding half the value

The final paragraph of subsection (b) protects the other owners when a single owner holds at least half of the value, a frequent situation when the developer has not yet sold a good share of the units. In those cases two-thirds is not enough: “fifty percent (50%) of the remaining votes present at the Assembly” is also required (Article 27 of Law 7933). An example makes this clear. In a beach condominium in Guanacaste, the developer keeps units totaling 60% of the value and wants to amend the bylaws. First, the developer must reach two-thirds of the total, that is, add votes from other owners up to 66.67%. And if owners holding another 30% of the value attend the assembly, the developer also needs votes in favor from those representing at least half of that 30%, that is, 15% of the value; in practice, that 15% absorbs the 6.67% the developer was missing to reach two-thirds.

In our view, the phrase “remaining votes present at the Assembly” refers to the votes of the other owners who are present, not to those of all the other owners, because that is the most natural reading of the text. But another reading is possible: that half of all the remaining votes is required, whether or not they are at the assembly, in which case the example would require other owners totaling 20% of the value. Until a court clarifies the point, whoever is promoting the resolution would do well to secure that larger number. This rule was already in the original 1999 text, and the 2022 amendment kept it.

Majority of the value on second call

Subsection (c) looks like the simplest, yet it generates the most litigation. It provides that any resolution not covered by the preceding subsections is approved “by the votes of the owners representing the majority of the value of the condominium.” The question is whether that majority is calculated on the total value or on the value present at the assembly. If it is calculated on the total, an assembly on second call with 30% of the value may meet, deliberate, and hear reports, but it cannot approve anything.

The Second Civil Court of Appeals of San José settled that question in decision 215-2024. An assembly on second call, with 26.47% of the value present, had appointed an administrator. The court distinguished between the quorum under Article 24, which allows the assembly to be held with any number of attendees, and the majority under Article 27(c), which is what allows it to make decisions. It concluded that “a percentage of the condominium’s value greater than 50% is necessary” and that, if it is not reached, the decision is neither valid nor effective. It annulled the entire assembly, along with the deed of notarial recording (protocolización), as absolutely null (Article 835(2) of the Civil Code).

The courts are not unanimous: the Civil and Labor Court of Appeals of Heredia, in decision 195-2025, upheld the dismissal of a challenge against resolutions approved on second call with 48.1% of the value, because the appeal did not rebut the trial court’s reasoning, which had relied on Article 24 and on the bylaws, and it left open whether Articles 24 and 27 “are complementary provisions, not mutually exclusive, or rather contradictory.” As early as 2002, the Constitutional Chamber had said that this likely inconsistency was for the ordinary courts to resolve (decision 2336-2002).

Until the First Chamber of the Supreme Court (Sala Primera) rules on the matter, the prudent course is to follow decision 215-2024: no resolution under subsection (c) should be treated as approved without votes totaling more than half of the total value. The opposite idea found its way into model bylaws; the one Sánchez Boza proposed said that resolutions would be adopted “by a majority of votes present,” a clause that still appears in bylaws drafted on those models and that does not conform to the law as that court read it. In the arbitration that ended with First Chamber ruling 2756-2022, the arbitrator had annulled, as contrary to Article 27, a clause under which the budget was deemed approved if no one showed up on second call; the First Chamber did not review that point, so it is an arbitral rather than a judicial view, but it illustrates the risk of shortcuts.

Improvements, urgent works, and reconstruction

Improvements to common property have their own rule: necessary improvements are approved by a majority of the value, and useful ones by two-thirds of the value (Article 14 of Law 7933). The decree adds that in existing condominiums any work on the common areas must be approved by the assembly, with one exception: when the work is urgent for safety or health reasons, or is required by a regulation or a court, the administrator may carry it out without a resolution, provided the plans have been approved, and then reports to the assembly (Article 64 of Decree 45214).

For rebuilding a destroyed condominium, there are two provisions that do not match. Article 27(b)(5) requires two-thirds of the total value to “approve partial or total reconstruction,” while Article 37 provides that, if the condominium is destroyed and “the majority of the owners” decides to rebuild it, the insurance proceeds go toward that purpose, any shortfall is paid proportionally, and those who refuse give the others the right to buy their units at a fair appraisal by experts within fifteen business days. The two provisions have coexisted since the original 1999 text, and the 2022 amendment left subsection (b)(5) untouched, so the chronological rule settles nothing.

In our view, the qualified majority of Article 27 governs, because it is the provision that expressly sets the majority for approving reconstruction; Article 37 governs its consequences (the use of the insurance, the allocation of the shortfall, and the purchase right), and its “majority” is read as a general reference to the assembly’s decision. Another reading is possible, one that treats Article 37 as a special rule for the case of destruction and is satisfied with a simple majority. This is a view held with moderate confidence, without verified case law, and anyone who wants to rebuild without exposure to a challenge should gather two-thirds of the value. If there is no will to rebuild, the assembly must request that the property be removed from the regime (desafectación) (Article 101 of Decree 45214), and terminating the regime requires unanimity (Article 36 of Law 7933), a topic covered in the study Owning a Condominium Unit.

How the condominium bylaws are amended today

Of all the resolutions in Article 27, the one that has raised the most doubts since 2022 is amending the bylaws, because the law contains two provisions that say different things. On one hand, Article 27(b)(7), as worded by Law 10229, requires two-thirds of the total value to “change the clauses of the deed of establishment or of the condominium bylaws.” On the other, Article 34, which was not amended, still says the bylaws “may be modified by the Owners’ Assembly, by unanimous vote of all the owners of the condominium.” Until 2022 the two provisions agreed, because former Article 27(a)(5) also required unanimity. The amendment changed one and left the other untouched.

The firm’s view

There is no verified case law resolving this conflict since Law 10229. In our view, since June 28, 2022, the bylaws and the deed of establishment are amended by votes representing at least two-thirds of the total value of the condominium, plus the additional requirement of 50% of the remaining votes when one owner holds half the value. There are four reasons.

The first is chronological. Repeal extends “to everything in the new law, on the same subject, that is incompatible with the prior one” (Article 8 of the Civil Code). Article 27(b)(7) dates from 2022 and Article 34 from 1999; where they conflict, the more recent one prevails, and only the phrase about the unanimous vote is impliedly repealed.

The second is that neither provision is special with respect to the other: both refer expressly to amending the bylaws, and Article 27 is, moreover, the provision that systematically governs all the majorities.

The third is legislative intent. Law 10229 deliberately took amendment of the bylaws off the unanimity list and placed it among the two-thirds resolutions. Keeping the unanimity of Article 34 would nullify the amendment precisely where the bylaws are concerned.

The fourth is systematic. The rest of Article 34 keeps its meaning: anyone who acquires a unit is bound by the existing bylaws, the first bylaws are established by the owner of the parent property, and every amendment is recorded in the Real Property Registry. Only the majority falls away.

The opposing argument is not absurd: the legislature did not touch Article 34, and someone who bought a unit relying on the fact that the bylaws could only change by unanimity might claim a protected expectation. It also has support that should not go unmentioned: in decision 2336-2002, the Constitutional Chamber counted changes to the clauses of the bylaws among the “fundamental aspects” of the regime that can only be changed by the will of all. We find that argument weaker, because that decision judged the 1999 text and said only that unanimity was reasonable, not that it was the only possible option, and because the minority remains protected by the matters that require unanimity and by the right to challenge under Article 26. But the degree of confidence is moderately high, not absolute. Nor do we know how the Real Property Registry currently assesses amendments approved by two-thirds; we found no published directive, and it is a practical risk that should be checked before the deed is submitted.

What the courts have said on related issues

Three rulings provide context, although none resolves the conflict. The Constitutional Chamber, in decision 2336-2002, rejected on the merits a challenge to the unanimity requirement in former Article 27(a) and in Article 34: the law was entitled to require it. The Second Civil Court of Appeals of San José, in decision 552-2023, judged a bylaw amendment approved in 2020 by the unanimity standard the law required at the time, because it was “unfeasible to give retroactive effect” to the 2022 amendment. It did not say whether two-thirds suffices after 2022; its lesson is that each amendment is measured against the law in force on the day of the assembly. And the Civil and Labor Court of Appeals of Heredia, in decision 195-2025, left standing an addendum to the bylaws approved in December 2022, on second call, with 48.1% of the value, less than two-thirds and far less than unanimity; it did so not because that majority was sufficient, but because the appeal did not rebut the trial court’s reasoning. The case shows that a poorly framed challenge can leave in place an amendment that, in our view, the law does not authorize.

The limits of a two-thirds amendment

Even with two-thirds, there are things a bylaw amendment cannot do. It cannot change the general purpose of the condominium or reduce green areas or parks, because that still requires unanimity (Article 27(a)(1) and (b)(3)). If it changes the use of a specific unit, the two-thirds majority of Article 27(b)(1) applies, but the owner of that unit must be a party to any proceeding concerning the resolution: the First Chamber, in ruling 867-2025, set aside an arbitral award that had declared a change of use null without joining the owner of the affected unit or the third parties who had acquired rights on the basis of that resolution. And no amendment may violate the law or undermine each unit’s independent use and enjoyment (Article 18 of Decree 45214).

Whoever promotes an amendment would do well to seek unanimity when possible and, if not, to document the two-thirds carefully: attendees with each unit’s percentage of value, the text of the amendment made available with the notice, a unit-by-unit vote, and notarial recording and registration in the Real Property Registry (Article 34 of Law 7933), with the legalized books the Registry requires before recording amendments (Article 231 of the General Regulations of the Real Property Registry (Reglamento General del Registro Inmobiliario), Executive Decree 44647-MJP). An amendment banning short-term rentals, like the one in the opening example, is analyzed under these criteria; its substance is covered in the studies Living in a Condominium and Renting in a Condominium.

Minutes, finality of resolutions, and legalized books

A resolution approved by the correct majority must still be put in writing, and the way it is written determines how it is proven and from when it can be challenged. The law requires the assembly’s resolutions to be entered in a minute book (Article 28 of Law 7933), and Decree 45214 sets the minimum content of each set of minutes. The minutes must record:

• the circumstances of place and time in which the assembly was held;
• the main points of the deliberation;
• the manner and result of the vote;
• the content of the resolutions;
• the documents supporting the participation of the unit owners (Article 92 of Decree 45214);
• for virtual assemblies, the format and the technological means used (Article 94(b)).

The same Article 92 of the decree adds a brief rule with large consequences: “Resolutions shall be considered final when the Assembly so decides.” Finality matters because the law counts the deadline for a challenge from it (Article 26 of Law 7933). That said, First Chamber case law predating the decree holds that the assembly’s resolutions are effective from the moment they are adopted. How the two are reconciled is explained in the last section; for now, it is enough to know that the prudent course is for the minutes to state expressly whether each resolution became final at the same meeting.

The condominium’s books

Since Law 8278 of 2002, a condominium must keep three books: the minute book of the assembly, the minute book of the board of directors “when one exists,” and the cash book, in which the administrator records income and expenditures (Article 32 bis of Law 7933). They are legalized and replaced by the Condominium Property Section of the Real Property Registry, and Decree 44647 sets out the procedure: the books may be paper or digital, the latter with a certified digital signature (Article 227); the legalization number is assigned automatically when the condominium is registered (Article 228); the request is made by an administrator whose appointment is current or, if it has expired, by any unit owner (Article 229); replacement for loss is done with a notice in the official gazette La Gaceta and eight business days without objection (Article 233); and the Registry publishes a database of legalized books (Article 238).

Two rules are of particular interest to unit owners. Custody of the books belongs “exclusively” to the administrator, unless the assembly designates another person by a final resolution (Article 237 of Decree 44647). And before recording an administrator’s appointment or an amendment to the bylaws, the Registry requires proof of legalized books (Article 231). A condominium that never legalized them may find out just when it needs to record an urgent amendment.

The condominium administrator

If the assembly is the body that decides, the administrator is the one that carries out decisions, and it is also the body unit owners deal with every day. The law governs the administrator in just a few articles (Articles 29 to 32 bis of Law 7933), which Decree 45214 fills out, especially in Articles 64 and 88 to 90.

Appointment, compensation, and term

The administrator may be an individual or a legal entity, so nothing prevents hiring a property management company (Article 29 of Law 7933). The decree clarifies that the administrator may act “jointly or individually” (Article 3.1 of Decree 45214), which allows more than one person to be appointed. The administrator is appointed by the assembly “in accordance with the condominium bylaws,” and the same assembly must approve the administrator’s compensation (Article 29). The bylaws must govern how the administrator is appointed, hired, or replaced, the administrator’s powers and duties, the term of the appointment, and the grounds for removal (Article 33(a)). Unless the bylaws set another valid majority, the appointment is a resolution under Article 27(c), which requires votes representing a majority of the value; indeed, it was an administrator’s appointment that the Second Civil Court of Appeals of San José annulled in decision 215-2024, because it was approved with 26.47% of the value.

When the term expires, the administrator remains in office until a successor can lawfully take over (Article 90 of Decree 45214). The rule prevents a vacuum, but it does not justify extending an expired appointment indefinitely: if the administrator does not call a meeting to appoint a successor, owners holding one-third of the value may do so (Article 25 of Law 7933). If the administrator dies or is removed, the unit owners must call a meeting to appoint a temporary successor (Article 90). Early removal depends on the bylaws and the contract; in our view, the assembly that appoints may remove, without prejudice to what the contract provides.

The administrator’s powers

“Unless these bylaws provide otherwise, the administrator shall have the powers of a general attorney-in-fact with respect to the condominium and the common property” (Article 29 of Law 7933). Under the Civil Code, a general attorney-in-fact (apoderado general) has “broad and general administration,” which includes entering into the acts necessary to preserve or exploit the property and demanding payment of debts, in or out of court (Article 1255 of the Civil Code). It does not include selling or encumbering the common property, which in addition requires unanimity when the condominium as a whole is involved (Article 27(a)(3) of Law 7933). Decree 45214 specifies that the administrator holds the judicial and extrajudicial representation of the condominium, unless the bylaws provide otherwise, and that the judicial, arbitral, and administrative actions needed to perform the administrator’s duties are included in that authority (Article 88 of Decree 45214). That is why the administrator may sue to collect fees without a specific assembly resolution for each case, and the text of Article 15 also authorizes the administrator to ask a court to impose the fine of one base salary (salario base, a statutory reference unit). For violations of the rules of coexistence, however, one must reckon with the view of the Civil and Labor Court of Appeals of Guanacaste, discussed below, that the sanction is determined by the assembly; for that reason, in our view, the prudent course is for the administrator to seek that fine backed by a resolution.

Within the scope of those powers, the administrator’s decisions are binding. “The measures and provisions adopted by the administration within its powers shall be mandatory for all owners, unless the Assembly modifies or revokes them” (Article 31 of Law 7933). An owner who disagrees with a measure taken by the administrator, then, cannot simply disregard it; the way forward is to bring it before the assembly.

The decree also grants the administrator some specific powers: carrying out urgent works in the common areas without a prior resolution, with approved plans and subsequent reporting (Article 64 of Decree 45214), and creating easements over the common areas for basic public utilities when the bylaws grant sufficient authority, or when the assembly grants it (Article 70).

The administrator’s duties

The administrator’s obligations are listed in Article 30 of Law 7933: caring for and overseeing the common property and services, operating the general facilities and services, carrying out acts of administration and maintenance as well as the assembly’s resolutions, collecting fees, and ensuring compliance with the law and the bylaws. The decree places the treatment plant and the basic-services infrastructure in the charge of “the condominium and its administration” (Articles 71 and 80 of Decree 45214). The administrator must also keep the cash book (Article 32 bis of Law 7933) and issue the certificate of good standing that the seller of a unit presents to the notary public (Article 21), which is different from the certificate of debts issued by a certified public accountant (contador público autorizado, CPA) (Article 20), as explained in the study Condominium Fees.

The duty of greatest interest to unit owners is accountability, on two levels. Before the assembly, the administrator presents a report and accounts each year (Article 26 of Law 7933). Before each owner, the administrator must account for the administration “to any unit owner who requests it” (Article 89 of Decree 45214), with no minimum percentage or prior resolution, in line with the general rule of agency (Article 1269 of the Civil Code). Someone who lives in a horizontal condominium in San Carlos and wants to know how the reserve fund was spent does not have to wait for the annual assembly: they can request it in writing.

There are also clear limits. The administrator does not impose sanctions on their own: the law assigns that power to the assembly, “after due process has been followed” (Article 23 of Law 7933). The Civil and Labor Court of Appeals of Guanacaste, in decision 318-2025, upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit in which an administrator asked the court to order a former president of the board of directors to stop sending emails against her: under Articles 15 and 23 and the bylaws, it is for the assembly to determine the sanction, after due process, and the court later reviews what the assembly decides (Article 26). The Second Civil Court of Appeals of San José, in decision 343-2023, accepted that the administrator may issue warnings or fines if the assembly so provided; in both cases the sanctioning power arises from the assembly and the bylaws, not from the office, as developed in the study Living in a Condominium. Nor may the administrator bring eviction proceedings (desahucio) on their own against a tenant who violates the bylaws: the administrator needs a power of attorney from the owner (Article 22 of Law 7933), as explained in the study Renting in a Condominium.

The administrator’s liability

Law 7933 does not establish a special liability regime for the administrator, and we found no verified case law on the subject. In our view, general law applies. Toward the condominium, the administrator is an agent holding a general power and, usually, a service contractor: the administrator must stay within the mandate (Article 1261 of the Civil Code), is liable for the damages caused by noncompliance (Article 702), and owes interest on sums applied to personal use (Article 1270). Toward a unit owner or a third party without a contract, the administrator is liable for harm caused by intent, fault, negligence, or recklessness (Article 1045). The decree adds that the administrator “shall be responsible” for applying the urgent-works rule (Article 64 of Decree 45214).

The board of directors, the oversight officer, and the owner who acts alone

Between the assembly and the administrator, many condominiums create other bodies. The law does not regulate them, but it allows them.

Board of directors and oversight officer

The only legal mention of the board of directors is in Article 32 bis, which requires its minute book to be kept “when one exists.” The oversight officer (fiscal) appears in neither the law nor the decree. Both exist only if the bylaws create them. Sánchez Boza noted in 2006 that the board of directors was not in the law; today the law recognizes it indirectly, though it still does not regulate it. Campos saw the assembly and the administrator as the minimum bodies and recommended creating, through the bylaws, committees, boards, and an investigating body for disciplinary proceedings that would safeguard the right of defense. The recommendation remains useful, because neither the law nor the decree regulates that procedure.

The limit on these bodies is the one the law sets. In our view, the bylaws may entrust the board of directors with supervising the administrator, preparing the budget, or investigating a disciplinary matter, but they may not transfer to it what the law reserves to the assembly: approving the budget and the fee (Article 26 of Law 7933 and Article 87 of Decree 45214), appointing the administrator (Article 29), imposing sanctions (Article 23), or adopting the resolutions in Article 27. A board that decides those matters without the assembly produces acts exposed to nullity. The oversight officer, where one exists, is useful precisely to make sure the administrator and the board stay within those limits and to report to the assembly.

Urgent acts by a single owner

The opposite can also happen: there may be no one to act. For that case the law grants each owner an exceptional power. “If there is no administrator or the administrator does not act, or if the administrator is incapacitated, any of the owners may alone carry out urgent acts of preservation and administration” (Article 32 of Law 7933). The owner who acts is entitled to charge the others, “upon due proof,” their proportional share of the expenses and of the time spent, and endorsement of those expenses by a certified public accountant “shall be sufficient proof that they exist” (Article 32). Decree 44647 applies the same idea to the books: if the administrator’s appointment has expired, any unit owner may request their legalization; if it is current but the administrator is unable to act, a unit owner may do so with a sworn statement in a public deed explaining the reason (Article 229 of Decree 44647).

The power covers only urgent acts, such as repairing the pump that left the building without water or dealing with a leak that threatens the structure, and only when the administration fails to act. It does not authorize anyone to take the assembly’s place or to make improvements that can wait. Campos counted it among the unit owner’s “administrative” rights, alongside the political rights of voting and calling meetings, a classification that still holds.

How to challenge an assembly resolution

All of the above leads to the question in the opening example: what can an owner do who believes a resolution is unlawful? The law grants an action and sets a short deadline. “Any owner who considers their rights harmed may bring a claim within three months after the resolution becomes final, and it shall be heard through the summary procedure established in the Civil Procedure Code” (Article 26 of Law 7933).

Who may challenge, and on what grounds

Standing belongs to “any owner” who considers their rights harmed, whether or not they attended. Tenants are not mentioned in the provision; in our view, a tenant’s path is to ask the owner to bring the challenge or to act under the owner’s power of attorney. In the verified case law, the most frequent grounds concern majorities: an assembly that adopted resolutions without a majority of the value (Second Civil Court of Appeals of San José, decision 215-2024) or an amendment approved without the majority in force when it was voted on (decision 552-2023). A defective notice, the unavailability of agenda documents (Article 91 of Decree 45214), a virtual assembly without the safeguards of Article 24, or a resolution contrary to the law or the bylaws may also be raised.

The three-month deadline and when it starts to run

The deadline is three months, and the First Chamber has settled its nature. It is a statutory forfeiture period (caducidad), not a statute of limitations (prescripción) (First Chamber, ruling 2756-2022), and it is a matter of public policy, so the bylaws can neither extend nor shorten it (First Chamber, ruling 1977-2020). The difference matters. What stops the forfeiture is filing the claim within the three months, even if service occurs later (ruling 2756-2022); in our view, a letter to the administrator or an objection raised at the assembly is no substitute. Once the deadline has passed, the claim may be dismissed at the outset as legally untenable (improponible) (Article 35.5.3 of the Civil Procedure Code, Law 9342).

The delicate part is when the clock starts. The law refers to “the resolution becoming final,” and Decree 45214 says resolutions become final “when the Assembly so decides” (Article 92). However, the First Chamber, in ruling 1977-2020, rejected the argument of some unit owners that resolutions adopted in 2016 had become final only when the 2017 assembly declared them so, and endorsed the arbitral tribunal’s view that “the resolutions of the owners’ assembly are effective for all purposes from the moment they are adopted at the assembly itself.” The Civil and Labor Court of Appeals of Alajuela, in decision 105-2026, applied that view to a unit owner who filed her lawsuit five days after three months had passed from the assembly, although within three months of receiving the minutes by email: no provision requires resolutions to be communicated for the deadline to run, and the lawsuit was dismissed as legally untenable because the forfeiture period had run.

Those rulings did not analyze Article 92 of Decree 45214, which was not in force when those assemblies were held, and it remains to be seen how much weight it will carry when an assembly expressly defers finality until the minutes are approved. The 2020 case was, in fact, one in which an assembly declared final, a year later, resolutions adopted at the previous one. Today, anyone arguing that position will have the text of the decree on their side, but against them a line of First Chamber rulings interpreting Article 26 of the law; and, in our view, an executive decree cannot extend a statutory forfeiture period. That is why the only safe rule is to count the three months from the day of the assembly, without waiting for the minutes, for their approval at another meeting, or for any notification. Anyone who did not attend should request the minutes from the administrator as soon as possible; the administrator is required to account for the administration to any unit owner (Article 89 of Decree 45214).

The judicial route today

The law refers to the “summary procedure” of the 1989 Civil Procedure Code, which no longer exists. Today that reference corresponds to the summary proceedings (proceso sumario) of the current code, which cover, among other matters, “disputes over the administration of co-ownership, horizontal property, and shared ownership” and those provided for by special laws (Article 103.1(9) and (14) of the Civil Procedure Code). The First Chamber had already held, under the former code, that claims against assembly resolutions “shall necessarily be heard through the Summary procedure” because Article 26 is a special law (ruling 1174-2016), and the courts now handle these lawsuits as summary condominium-dispute proceedings before the civil courts.

Summary proceedings are brief. The defendant has five days to answer (Article 103.2 of the Civil Procedure Code); everything is resolved at a single hearing, which includes an attempt at settlement, the taking of evidence, closing arguments, and the judgment (Article 103.3); and if the judgment dismisses the claim, the plaintiff may ask within ten days for the case to be converted into ordinary proceedings (Article 103.4). To prepare the lawsuit, these documents should be gathered before the deadline expires:

• the notice of meeting, with proof of how and when it was communicated;
• the minutes of the assembly or, if they are not provided, proof that you requested them;
• the recorded bylaws and, if applicable, the challenged amendment;
• the registry certificate for your unit and the deed or table showing each unit’s percentage of value;
• the agenda documents that were or were not made available (Article 91 of Decree 45214);
• for a virtual assembly, proof of the medium used and of any connection or identity-verification failures.

Suspending the resolution while the case is pending

While the case is pending, the resolution remains binding (Article 26 of Law 7933). If carrying it out could cause harm that is difficult to repair, such as starting construction work or recording an amendment, a specific interim measure may be requested: when a violation of statutory or contractual rights “relating to corporate, condominium, or other group resolutions” is alleged, their effects may be provisionally suspended and the measure noted in the registry (Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Code). The same article requires, for commercial companies, that the applicant represent at least 10% of the capital and, for “other legal persons or entities,” that the applicant hold shares “in the same proportion.” Whether that applies to a condominium, so that only someone representing 10% of the value may seek suspension, is an open question, with no verified case law.

In our view, the text leans toward requiring it, because the condominium acts as an entity and each unit’s percentage of value performs the function of a share; the owner of a small unit should expect that objection to be raised and, if possible, bring other unit owners into the request. Whoever seeks the measure must also post security (Article 93 of the Civil Procedure Code). Without a suspension, the prudent course is to comply with the resolution, for example by paying the approved fee, and to contest it in the proceedings.

When the bylaws require arbitration

Summary proceedings are not the only possible route. The First Chamber, in ruling 546-2024, upheld the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal to hear a challenge to two assembly resolutions, because the bylaws contained an arbitration clause, approved by the entire value, and Article 26 of the law “in no way excludes the possibility that the unit owners… agree to arbitration.” The route therefore depends on how each condominium’s bylaws are drafted, and the three-month forfeiture period applies equally in arbitration (rulings 1977-2020 and 2756-2022, both on arbitral challenges). What is generally not an appropriate route is an amparo petition (recurso de amparo): the Constitutional Chamber, in decision 10766-2026, summarily rejected an amparo petition against a fine imposed by the assembly, because disputes over the bylaws, assembly decisions, and administration are matters of ordinary legality and must be raised first before the assembly itself and then in the ordinary courts.

What to review in your condominium

Condominium governance rests on a simple idea: the assembly decides, the administrator carries out its decisions, and the bylaws set the rules for both, always within the law. A valid assembly requires a notice from the administrator or from one-third of the value, with the advance notice set by the bylaws or, if they are silent, fifteen calendar days with the documents made available. The second call allows a meeting with few attendees, but according to the only verified appellate decision that has expressly ruled on the point, it does not allow decisions without a majority of the total value. Virtual assemblies are lawful if there is audio, video, and real-time interaction and the notice announces it. Since 2022, in our view, the bylaws are amended by two-thirds of the value, although case law is lacking and registry practice must be checked. The administrator binds everyone within the scope of the administrator’s powers, must account to anyone who asks, and cannot impose sanctions on their own. And anyone who believes a resolution is unlawful has three months, counted in practice from the day of the assembly, to file suit.

With those guidelines in mind, it pays to review your own condominium before a dispute arises: read the recorded bylaws and check whether their clauses on notice, majorities, and virtual assemblies conform to current law; verify that the books are legalized and that the administrator’s appointment is current; request the accounts when needed; and, if a resolution seems unlawful to you, note the date of the assembly and do not let the deadline pass. Many bylaws were drafted from models predating 2022, with very short notice periods or with resolutions adopted by a majority of those present, and bringing them up to date is a task the assembly itself can undertake with the majorities the law now requires.

If your condominium is facing a questionable assembly, a bylaw amendment, or a disagreement with the administration, you can book a consultation with the firm to review your case with the documents at hand.

Main statutes and sources

• Law 7933, Condominium Property Regulatory Law (Ley Reguladora de la Propiedad en Condominio), current version of March 16, 2026 (SINALEVI).
• Executive Decree 45214-MIVAH-MEIC-TUR, Executive Regulations to the Condominium Property Regulatory Law (Reglamento a la Ley Reguladora de la Propiedad en Condominio) (La Gaceta 198, Supplement 136, October 22, 2025; in force since January 19, 2026).
• Law 10229, amending Article 27 of Law 7933 (La Gaceta 120, June 28, 2022).
• Law 10746, amending Articles 24 and 25 of Law 7933 (La Gaceta 179, September 25, 2025; in force upon publication).
• Law 8278 of May 2, 2002, amending Articles 20, 28, and 32 bis of Law 7933.
• Law 8984 of 2011, amending Article 32 bis of Law 7933.
• Law 10882, Law on the Modernization of and Equitable Access to Public Services in Social-Interest Condominiums (Ley de modernización y acceso equitativo a servicios públicos en condominios de interés social), of March 16, 2026 (La Gaceta 71, Supplement 39, April 20, 2026; in force since April 30, 2026).
• Law 9342, Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil), current version of March 25, 2026 (SINALEVI).
• Civil Code (Código Civil), Law 30, current version of November 16, 2025 (SINALEVI).
• Law 7527, General Law on Urban and Suburban Leases (Ley General de Arrendamientos Urbanos y Suburbanos), current version of October 7, 2022 (SINALEVI).
• Executive Decree 44647-MJP, General Regulations of the Real Property Registry (Reglamento General del Registro Inmobiliario), in force since March 24, 2025, version of May 29, 2026 (SINALEVI).
• Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), decision 2336-2002, March 6, 2002.
• Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), decision 10766-2026, March 24, 2026.
• First Chamber of the Supreme Court (Sala Primera), ruling 1174-2016, November 10, 2016.
• First Chamber of the Supreme Court (Sala Primera), ruling 1977-2020, June 3, 2020.
• First Chamber of the Supreme Court (Sala Primera), ruling 2756-2022, December 22, 2022.
• First Chamber of the Supreme Court (Sala Primera), ruling 546-2024, May 24, 2024.
• First Chamber of the Supreme Court (Sala Primera), ruling 867-2025, May 22, 2025.
• Second Civil Court of Appeals of San José, Second Section, decision 343-2023, June 20, 2023.
• Second Civil Court of Appeals of San José, First Section, decision 552-2023, October 3, 2023.
• Second Civil Court of Appeals of San José, Second Section, decision 215-2024, April 24, 2024.
• Civil and Labor Court of Appeals of Heredia, decision 195-2025, May 19, 2025.
• Civil and Labor Court of Appeals of Guanacaste, decision 318-2025, November 11, 2025.
• Civil and Labor Court of Appeals of Alajuela, decision 105-2026, January 29, 2026.
• Montejo Morales, Andrés, et al., Ley Reguladora de la Propiedad en Condominio y la Propiedad Horizontal en Costa Rica. Experiencias y problemas concretos [The Condominium Property Regulatory Law and Horizontal Property in Costa Rica: Experiences and Concrete Problems], Institute of Legal Research (Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas), University of Costa Rica, 2006.

This study is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice for any specific case. To discuss your situation, book a consultation.

All studies Share