The owners’ assembly has the authority over the property management area.

Decision-making authority over numerous matters.

However, the homeowners’ committee, citing technical convenience,

Feel free to use third-party mini-programs to organize polls,

Even personal information can be modified,

The voting results can be viewed at any time,

Is this still reliable?

Ms. Yang is a homeowner in an apartment building at a certain business plaza. In November 2024, the second-term owners’ committee of the business plaza issued an announcement deciding to convene the fifth owners’ meeting to deliberate on amendments to the owners’ assembly’s… Rules of Procedure 》, four major matters—terminating the property management company, authorizing the owners’ committee to select a new property manager, and withdrawing a portion of the common‑area income to return to the owners—were put to a vote.

The voting method for this owners’ assembly has drawn Ms. Yang’s attention: the owners’ committee announced that it would use a third-party WeChat voting mini-program, supplemented by offline paper ballots.

However, the current Rules of Procedure of the Owners’ Assembly for this commercial plaza explicitly stipulate that the assembly may be convened only through “collective deliberation, written solicitation of opinions, or voting via the electronic voting system for owner decision‑making established by the administrative authority responsible for property management.” Third-party mini programs are not included in the aforementioned methods. 。

Ms. Yang learned from consulting the mini-program’s customer service that the party initiating the vote can view individual voting records in real time, set limits on the number of votes per WeChat account, and even modify key information—such as the unit number—entered by residents during the voting process. Meanwhile, voters have the option not to link their WeChat accounts to their real-name authentication, making it difficult to verify their true identities. This has led Ms. Yang and some other residents to question the authenticity and fairness of the voting process.

After Ms. Yang reported the situation to the relevant authorities, on December 3, 2024, the local administrative department responsible for property management and the community residents’ committee each issued letters to the business plaza’s owners’ committee, pointing out that its use of a third-party mini-program for voting was not in compliance with the Rules of Procedure, and requiring it to adopt the official online voting system for owner decision‑making established by the local housing and urban–rural development authority. Kunwutong “Cast your vote.”

However, the owners’ committee contends that its use of a mini-program for voting constitutes a form of “written‑opinion” collection: after casting their votes, owners receive a PDF document bearing their handwritten signature on the mini‑program; the committee then prints these documents to produce paper ballots, which are submitted to the owners’ assembly for vote counting, thereby deeming this method as participation in the assembly in the form of “written opinions.” Furthermore, citing “technological convenience” and other reasons, the committee has refused to comply with the administrative authorities’ remedial directives and is proceeding as planned to organize the vote.

On December 22, the homeowners’ committee, based on the results of that vote, publicly announced the approval of all agenda items and declared that the resolutions had officially taken effect.

Ms. Yang contends that the vote failed to comply with statutory requirements in both procedure and substance, thereby seriously infringing upon her lawful rights and interests as a property owner. Accordingly, she brought the matter before the court, seeking a judgment to set aside the announcement of the voting results issued by the owners’ committee, as well as all corresponding resolutions adopted at the owners’ assembly.

During the proceedings, the court, upon Ms. Yang’s application, promptly… Make Order for Preservation of Evidence ， The court ruled that the owners’ committee shall immediately cease implementing all resolutions adopted at the relevant owners’ assembly, for a period of one year. , thereby effectively safeguarding the existing administrative status quo and preventing irreversible consequences that might arise from implementing the resolution prior to the conclusion of the case.

In the subsequent substantive proceedings, the court held that the central issue in this case is whether the resolution at issue, adopted by the owners’ committee, infringes upon the lawful rights and interests of the owners, both procedurally and substantively—namely, whether the voting procedure was lawful and whether the content of the resolution exceeds the mandatory provisions of the law.

Regarding the procedural level The Rules of Procedure, adopted by the owners through the legally prescribed process, constitute the fundamental framework for owner self-governance and are binding on all owners and the Owners’ Committee; the latter is obligated to comply with them. The current Rules of Procedure of the Owners’ Assembly of this commercial plaza explicitly stipulate voting procedures to ensure the authenticity, fairness, and traceability of voting outcomes. In practice, to facilitate owner participation and enhance voting efficiency, the Owners’ Committee has explored the use of electronic tools such as WeChat mini‑programs, which is reasonably justified; however, this must be predicated on procedural safeguards and the impartiality of the results.

In this case, the homeowners’ committee’s practice of having residents complete forms via a mini-program and generating electronic documents essentially constitutes “electronic voting.” By disguising such electronic voting as “written opinions,” it amounts to an evasion of the provision in the Rules of Procedure that mandates the use of an official system for electronic voting. More critically, The third-party mini-program adopted by the homeowners’ committee itself has multiple technical vulnerabilities. ： Voters may choose not to link their WeChat real-name authentication information, making it difficult to verify their true identities and failing to ensure consistency between the voter, the property, and the purported “signature on the paper ballot.” Meanwhile, the poll initiator can view the results in real time and intervene by contacting owners to solicit changes to their opinions. Furthermore, the voting process lacks effective oversight and a robust audit‑trail mechanism. These defects directly undermine the foundation of the voting procedure, casting doubt on the authenticity of the so‑called “written opinions” and making it impossible to ensure that the voting results accurately reflect the owners’ true intentions. Accordingly, this mini‑program does not meet the objective requirements for serving as a lawful voting tool.

Regarding the content level : All matters covered by the resolution in question fall under The Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China The matters subject to joint decision by the owners as stipulated in Article 278, if duly adopted through lawful procedures, fall within the scope of the owners’ exercise of their right of self-governance and do not constitute an infringement upon the legitimate rights and interests of the owners. However, where the voting procedure is unlawful, the resolution as a whole lacks a lawful basis.

In summary, the voting procedure of the owners’ assembly was unlawful and substantively infringed upon the plaintiffs’ and other owners’ rights to participation, to information, and to decision‑making. The court ultimately ruled to annul all resolutions contained in the defendant homeowners’ committee’s “Notice on the Voting Results of the Fifth Owners’ Assembly of a Certain Commercial Plaza,” issued on December 22, 2024. Following the first‑instance judgment, the defendant homeowners’ committee, dissatisfied with the ruling, filed an appeal; the second‑instance court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

Homeowners’ self-governance is the core principle of property management, but such self‑governance must remain within the bounds of the law. “Respecting the rules” and “embracing technology” are not mutually exclusive; however, the introduction of technology must be anchored in the imperatives of security and fairness. No voting mechanism—no matter how innovative its form or how convenient its operation—can serve as a legitimate vehicle for collective decision‑making by homeowners unless it can ensure the authenticity of identities, the freedom of expression, information security, and the immutability of data. Article 278 of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China not only confers upon homeowners the right to make collective decisions, but also delineates the boundaries of self‑governance through clearly defined voting procedures and scope. Any attempt to circumvent the law or undermine homeowners’ rights under the guise of “self‑governance” is inconsistent with the legislative intent. The outcome of this case… , which not only safeguards the rights of individual owners but also upholds the order of collective governance among owners.

Moreover, in property management disputes, resolutions passed by the owners’ assembly often entail fundamental changes to the community’s management model, and once implemented, it is exceedingly difficult to reverse course. In this case, the court promptly issued an order during the trial phase to suspend the enforcement of the contested resolution. By combining “provisional measures” with a final judgment, the court effectively mitigated the risk of irreversible enforcement of the resolution and irreparable harm to the parties’ rights and interests, thereby providing a valuable reference for the application of provisional measures in similar disputes.

( Reposted from: Jiangsu High People’s Court)