This page collects everything I know about the homeowners' association of Next White, and every argument that depends on it. The association exists whether or not anyone formalized it, the elevators are its common property, and no one has the authority to condition an owner's use of the elevators.

What a homeowners' association is

Under the Law of Georgia on Homeowners' Associations, every apartment building with more than two individually owned apartments has a homeowners' association (HOA): the union of the owners of its apartments (Article 3(a), (c)). The association is not a company and not a legal person (Article 14(1)). It is the owners, acting together over what they own together.

Each owner holds a share in the common property in proportion to the area of their apartment (Article 5(3)). The common property expressly includes the elevators, corridors, lobbies, stairwells, technical floors, roofs, and the utility networks serving the building (Article 5(4)). Membership is acquired by buying an apartment and ends by selling it (Article 19).

An association may adopt a charter: its own set of rules, adopted at a meeting by two thirds of the votes, or three quarters if there are twelve or fewer members (Article 23). A charter can regulate how the common property is developed, how regular expenses are set, how the chairperson is appointed and dismissed, and under what procedure management is handed to a hired manager. A charter is optional. If there is none, the default rules of Chapter V of the Law apply (Article 23(3), Article 28(1)).

Under those default rules, the association is run by a chairperson, elected at a meeting of members by two thirds of the votes (Article 26(3)). If no chairperson is elected, the members take turns in six-month rotations, in an order drawn by lot at a meeting (Article 26(3)). Any member or a hired manager may be elected (Article 26(4)). The chairperson calls meetings at least once a year, and members must be notified in writing (Article 27). Decisions are taken at meetings, by majority unless the Law requires more, and must be recorded in minutes signed by the chair of the meeting, which every owner may inspect and may appeal in court (Article 28).

The association of Next White exists by statute

Nothing has to be founded, registered or signed for the association to exist. The Law says it is "deemed established" in every apartment building on a single land parcel with more than two individually owned apartments (Article 11(1)), and the title of that article in the Georgian original is "the homeowners' association created by law in an apartment building" (კანონით შექმნილი ბინათმესაკუთრეთა ამხანაგობა მრავალბინიან სახლში).

Article 11(1) is phrased from the moment the Law entered into force, August 1, 2007, and Next White was built long after. The rest of the Law removes any doubt that it applies to buildings built later:

• Membership "shall be acquired upon the purchase of individual property in an apartment building" (Article 19(3); in the Georgian, წარმოიშობა შეძენისთანავე, "arises immediately upon acquisition"), and a buyer becomes a member "from the moment of the origination of the right of ownership" (Article 19(5)). Membership presupposes an association.
• The transitional provisions speak of buildings "in which the HOAs are formed under this Law", in the present tense (Article 30(2), იქმნება).
• An association is liquidated only if the building is destroyed, if one person comes to own every apartment, or in other cases provided for by the legislation of Georgia (Article 24(1)). As soon as a developer has sold enough apartments that more than two are individually owned, the association exists.

Clearly, Next White is such a building.

No evidence that the association was ever formalized

I have never received written notice of a meeting (Article 27(4)). I have never been shown a charter, minutes of any meeting, a record of the election of a chairperson, or an instrument appointing either Next company as manager. On July 4, 2026 I asked in writing for the legal basis of the obligations Next asserts; the reply identified none. On August 11, 2026 I demanded the removal of the elevator access-control system; the director's reply relied on "the rules applicable within the building" and named no rule, no decision and no meeting by which any rule was adopted. Nothing Next has ever written to me mentions a charter, a meeting or a chairperson.

Either the association was formalized or it was not. Both branches lead to the same place.

If it was not formalized, the default rules of Chapter V apply. No charter means no rules under which any part of the common property may be handed over to a third party for its use (Article 6(4): "only in accordance with the rules laid down by the charter"). No chairperson elected, and no rotation drawn by lot, means no one holds the authority to take measures for the maintenance, use and development of the common property, which even the chairperson may only take "in agreement with a meeting of the HOA members" (Article 26(7)(c)). No meeting means no decision, and a decision binds the members only once it has been taken at a meeting and recorded in minutes (Article 28(7), 28(9)). The Law allows the owners' joint administration to be arranged differently "by the charter of the HOA or any other agreement" (Article 8(1)); an agreement of the owners, that is, and Next has never claimed that I signed anything: its own position is that I was obliged to sign, not that I did. In this branch, nobody had the authority to modify the elevators, and nobody has the authority to set fees or to enforce them.

If it was formalized, Next holds the charter, the minutes and the election record, and has never produced them. Producing them would not help. Handing over the use of the elevators to anyone requires the unanimous decision of all members (Article 6(5)(b)), and any development that significantly alters the common property and affects its use by other owners requires the unanimous decision of all members, taken at a meeting (Article 10(1)). Neither provision allows a charter to lower that threshold: where the Law lets a charter vary a rule, it says so, as in Articles 5(6), 7(3), 7(4) and 8(1), and it does not say so here. I am a member. I was never asked, and I never consented. A decision that needs my vote and did not have it was not taken.

In neither branch did anyone have the right to do what was done on July 1, 2026.

The access-control system is a modification, whatever Next calls it

Before July 1, 2026, anyone in the building could ride the elevators to any floor. Since then, residential floor selection depends on a chip that Next issues, on Next's conditions, and can withhold. That is a "functional modification" of the common property, which the Law defines as development (Article 3(i)). It plainly "affects the use of the common property by homeowners" (Article 10(1)): couriers and visitors cannot reach any apartment without the front desk, and owners who operate their units as apart-hotels must arrange chips for every guest.

Next calls it a security measure, "implemented for security purposes, in order to limit the uncontrolled movement of unauthorized persons within the building", that is, use or maintenance rather than development. The label does not matter. Even measures of maintenance and use may be taken only by the chairperson in agreement with a meeting of members (Article 26(7)(c)), recorded in minutes (Article 28(7)). None of that happened. And Next's own threat of September 30, 2025, presented the system not as a security necessity but as a consequence of unpaid fees, avoidable by paying them.

The Law's term in Article 6(5) is "transfer for use" (სარგებლობაში გადაცემა), the expression for letting someone other than the owners have the use of an object, as in a lease. Since July 1, 2026, the use of the elevators is in the hands of Next Hospitality: it decides who rides, on what terms, and for how long. No owner was asked whether the elevators' use should be placed in its hands.

Owners have an unqualified right to use the elevators

"An owner may use the common property of HOA members" (Article 7(2)). The Georgian is as plain as the English: მესაკუთრეს შეუძლია ისარგებლოს. No condition follows. The right is not subject to payment, to signature, or to the permission of anyone.

The Law does oblige owners to contribute to the expenses of maintaining and using the common property, in proportion to their share (Article 5(6), Article 7(3), Article 21(1)(f)), and it says that refusing to use the common property does not release an owner from that obligation (Article 21(2)). I have never denied it. But the obligation is owed "to other homeowners" (Article 7(3)), not to a company; the amount of the regular expenses is determined by the chairperson in agreement with a meeting of members (Article 26(7)(e)); every member has the right to information on the expenses incurred (Article 20(e)); and if a member fails to pay, the association's remedies are to apply to a court (Article 21(3)) or, for debts above GEL 500, to register the debt against the apartment through the Public Registry (Article 14(5)). No provision of the Law allows anyone to suspend an owner's use of the common property, for any reason.

The only document in which a power to withhold elevator access appears is clause 5.2 of the Common-Area Services Agreement, a draft that Next wrote, that I never signed, and that by its own clause 9.11 takes effect only upon signature. Next is enforcing against me a power it granted itself, in a document I refused, over property I co-own.

What I do not know

• Whether any entity in the Next Group still owns apartments in the building, and how many.
• Whether any meeting of owners was ever held. I received no notice of one, and Next has never mentioned one.

If the association was ever formalized, the Law requires minutes and a record of the election of a chairperson to exist, along with a charter if one was adopted, and Next would hold them. It has never mentioned any of them.