[2] Compiled from: Shandong High Court
 
Case review
A certain residential community was built around 2004, consisting of only two residential buildings, each six stories high, with two households per floor and staircases for going up and down. In 2019, the installation of an elevator in Unit 2 of this community began soliciting opinions, and all 12 households involved agreed to the installation. In November of the same year, the proposal for the elevator installation was approved by the relevant departments. In April 2020, the Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau issued a notice to the construction company regarding the voluntary installation of elevators in existing residential buildings. In May, the construction team began work on site, but soon after, the two households on the first floor raised objections, halted construction, and refused to allow the elevator installation.

 

The first-floor residents claimed that when they bought their apartments, they chose the first floor precisely because the community had no elevator. The price of first-floor apartments was significantly higher than those on higher floors. The first-floor residents argued that the elevator installation would affect their lighting and directly impact the value of their apartments.
 
After multiple unsuccessful negotiations between the upstairs and downstairs owners, four owners from the fourth, fifth, and sixth floors jointly sued the two owners on the first floor, demanding that the first-floor owners stop obstructing the elevator construction and cooperate in fulfilling the elevator installation contract.
 
In court, the downstairs owners stated that they were unaware of the content of the agreement related to the elevator installation project and were also unaware of the signatures of the unit's owners on it. They also argued that the elevator installation might affect their convenience and safety for daily travel, as well as pose unforeseen risks such as fire evacuation and lighting, which is why they obstructed the elevator installation.
 
 
《Civil Code》
Article 278
The following matters shall be jointly decided by the owners:
(1) Formulate and amend the rules of procedure for the owners' assembly;
(2) Formulate and amend the management regulations;
(3) Elect or replace members of the owners' committee;
(4) Select and appoint or dismiss property service enterprises or other managers;
(5) Use the maintenance funds for buildings and their ancillary facilities;
(6) Raise maintenance funds for buildings and their ancillary facilities.
(7) Alteration or reconstruction of buildings and their附属 facilities;
(8) Change of use of common areas or use of common areas for business activities;
(9) Other major matters concerning common ownership and joint management rights.
Matters decided jointly by owners shall require participation in voting by owners representing at least two-thirds of the total area of exclusive parts and at least two-thirds of the total number of owners. Decisions on matters specified in items 6 to 8 of the preceding paragraph shall require approval by owners representing at least three-quarters of the area of exclusive parts among those participating in voting and at least three-quarters of the number of owners participating in voting. Decisions on other matters specified in the preceding paragraph shall require approval by owners representing more than half of the area of exclusive parts among those participating in voting and more than half of the number of owners participating in voting.

 

 
[1] Court Opinion
The court, after trial, determined that the installation of an elevator in the residential community was publicly announced and the relevant procedures were carried out as required, in compliance with legal provisions. The court ultimately upheld the plaintiff's claims, ruling in the first instance that the first-floor residents must cease obstructing and hindering the elevator installation. After the first instance, the defendant appealed.
 
In January of this year, the Chengdu Intermediate People's Court, in its second-instance trial, found that the first-instance court's determination was not improper. It dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
 
 
[1] The author's perspective
The author believes the key to this case lies in whether the installation of the elevator followed proper procedures and was legally justified. In this case, the matter of installing the elevator received approval from owners representing more than two-thirds of the total building area and more than two-thirds of the total number of owners, and it went through a series of procedures including public notice, filing, and approval. According to Article 278 of the Civil Code, the procedure for installing the elevator is legal and proper.
 
We understand that residents on higher floors may indeed have a need for an elevator, such as having elderly family members or wanting to improve their quality of life, but we must also understand the inconvenience that installing an elevator brings to residents on lower floors. After all, living in the same community and building, neighbors see each other often, so it’s best to negotiate properly without necessarily ending up in court. Once this case was reported, many citizens believed that the court’s ruling provides a reference for future elevator installations in old residential communities. Since installing elevators is a trend in such communities, it is hoped that the process will go more smoothly in the future, with fewer objections from lower-floor owners.