Abstract: Since the reform and opening up, the society has accumulated a lot of wealth to promote the rapid development of all walks of life, the material needs of the people are increasing, especially the demand for housing. In order to meet the needs of the people, the urban real estate industry has risen rapidly and occupied the market. But it also led to the intensification of the contradiction between people and land. In the face of this contradiction, urban housing began to change from the initial horizontal development to vertical development, which made people live more and more concentrated.

In the "Property Law" promulgated in 2007, there is an important initiative on the division of ownership of buildings, which is the first time in our country to put forward the concept in the law. However, although it is of far-reaching significance for the property law to have such a provision, the right of membership is not well known to the general public. In addition, the provisions of the property law on the rights of members are also relatively general, and the law cannot be directly copied in the actual trial, otherwise it will cause more problems. Therefore, in order to solve the above problems, this paper will analyze the legal problems existing in the exercise of membership rights and put forward its own views.

Keywords: Owners' Membership Rights, Owners, Owners' Congress, Owners' Committee

Overview of the Owners' Membership Rights in 1. Residential Areas

The concept of the right of membership of the owners of the (I) community.

At present, there is no general theory of membership rights in the world today, and there are many different understandings in the academic community. However, these different understandings can be roughly divided into three doctrines: monism, dualism and trialism. First of all, the number of scholars holding monism in the world is relatively small, mainly because monism advocates that the differentiated ownership of buildings can be divided into "exclusive rights" or "common rights", which shows the shortcomings of monism, such as strong limitations, inability to withstand scrutiny, and inconsistency with real life. In today's academic circles, there are more scholars holding dualism and ternalism, and there are more disputes caused by both. According to dualism scholars, the idea that the differentiated ownership of a building includes not only the exclusive rights of each owner to the exclusive part, but also the owner's ownership of the common part, makes a complete distinction between dualism and monism. Scholars who hold the tripartite theory argue that, in addition to the exclusive rights and ownership rights proposed by dualism scholars, the division of ownership of buildings should also include the rights of members arising from the common relationship of the owners.

In this regard, the author is in favor of the ternary theory. The author thinks that in order to define the ownership of buildings in a comprehensive and systematic way, it is necessary to recognize that the ownership of buildings contains exclusive rights, common rights and membership rights. In addition, the author believes that before discussing the concept of the owner's membership right, we must first determine one point, that is, the membership right is a private right; at the same time, it contains both the characteristics of procedural rights and the characteristics of substantive rights, which can be called New rights. In addition, membership rights cannot be included in the common rights in the division of ownership of buildings. The common right in the division of ownership of buildings embodies a kind of property legal relationship, while the right of membership, as an independent right, includes not only the property relationship, but also a management relationship, which is different from the traditional focus on the exclusive and common parts. Therefore, the recognition of the existence of membership rights is of great significance to the current legal profession to solve practical problems.

The exercise and realization form of the right of the owner of the (II) community.

At present, the owners of the residential area generally manage the specific affairs of the residential area by creating the owners' assembly or the owners' committee instead. At the same time, all the owners have the right to supervise the owners' committee or the owners' assembly. Once the resolution made by the owners' assembly or the owners' committee damages the owners' rights and interests, the owners have the right to remedy through management regulations or legal channels.

1.The owners' assembly-the decision-making body for the exercise of owners' members' rights

(1) Duties of the owners' meeting

The owners' meeting is composed of all the owners of the community, and at the same time, under the guidance of the real estate administrative department of the district or county people's government where the property is located, it makes resolutions on matters related to the common interests of the owners. The owners' committee shall be elected by the owners' assembly, and the owners' committee shall be supervised by the owners' assembly. In addition, the main responsibilities of the owners' meeting include: formulating owners' statutes; electing and dismissing owners' committees and property management companies; and managing public maintenance funds.

(2) Resolution method of the owners' meeting

The owners of the community realize democratic autonomy through the owners' meeting, and exercise their membership rights through the owners' meeting and the owners' committee. In real life, it is difficult for all owners to reach an agreement. Therefore, in the resolution mechanism of the owners' meeting, China currently uses "double majority". According to Article 278 of the Civil Code: "When the owners jointly decide matters, the owners whose exclusive part accounts for more than 2/3 of the area and the owners whose number accounts for more than 2/3 shall participate in the voting. Decisions on the matters specified in Items 6 to 8 of the preceding paragraph shall be approved by the owners whose voting area is more than 3/4 and the number of owners whose voting is more than 3/4. Decisions on other matters in the preceding paragraph shall be approved by more than half of the owners participating in the voting of the exclusive part of the area and more than half of the owners participating in the voting.". As can be seen from the above provisions, for major matters such as the use of maintenance funds, etc. to take a special voting method, that is, the need for dual 2/3 to participate in the voting, the participation of the dual 3/4 agreed. For general matters such as the selection of property service enterprises, etc. to take a double 2/3 to participate in the voting, to participate in the voting of the double majority of the rules agreed.

2.The owners' committee-the executive body for the exercise of the rights of the owners.

The owners' meeting comes first, and the owners' committee comes later. The owners' committee is elected by all the owners through the owners' assembly. Therefore, the owners' meeting is the premise of the owners' committee. The management of the general community is the responsibility of the owners' committee, which holds the power. There are many disadvantages in this mode of operation. Now, our country adopts the management mode of coexistence of owners' assembly and owners' committee. This management mode has changed the disadvantages of the previous mode of management by a single owners' committee, and its benefits have also emerged in recent years.

2. the legal problems existing in the exercise of the right of community owners in China

Difficulties in convening the (I) owners' meeting

Owners' membership rights are mainly exercised by the owners through their participation in the owners' meeting, so the smooth convening of the owners' meeting is a prerequisite for the owners to safeguard their own interests. However, due to many reasons, in practice, many communities have never held a general meeting of owners for a long time. If this situation is not solved, it is nonsense to shout the slogan of protecting the rights and interests of owners. Then, the specific reasons that hinder the convening of the owners' meeting are analyzed as follows:

First, since the owners' meeting came first and the owners' committee came later, there was no owners' committee when the owners' meeting was held for the first time. Although Article 9 of the "Property Management Regulations" stipulates that "convening a meeting of the owners' meeting" is one of the responsibilities of the owners' committee, when there is a lack of the organizer of the owners' committee, how to convene the first owners' meeting varies from place to place. In general, in most areas of our country is the provision of real estate developers organized by the owners of the General Assembly. However, in order to hold the right of property management, real estate developers are unwilling to hold the owners' meeting in many cases, or there are some real estate developers deliberately obstruct or delay time, resulting in the first owners' meeting can not be held smoothly.

Second, although the democratic consciousness of the people has been greatly improved since the reform and opening up, the emergence of membership rights is also due to the increasing concentration of people living in the same building, which is still a short period of time. Many owners do not yet know that they have membership rights, and of course they are even less likely to know how to exercise them. Moreover, due to bear some management costs, the enthusiasm of owners to participate in management is also greatly reduced. In addition, there is not much intersection between the owners and the lack of a foundation for unity. Even if they live across the street, it is very common that they do not understand their neighbors across the street. Moreover, modern people are usually indifferent to things that are not related to their own vital interests. These are the reasons for the low enthusiasm of the owners to participate in the management.

Third, in 2007, the "Property Law" recognized the differentiated ownership of buildings for the first time in legislation. Today, Chapter 6 of the "Civil Code" once again determines the differentiated ownership of buildings by the owners. Although the scope shared by the owners is determined to a certain extent, However, there are fait accompli in all parts of the country, which is difficult to operate. Moreover, the regulations on the first convening of the owners' meeting in various places are different, and there are even violations such as developers delaying the convening and assimilating owners' representatives, which makes the operation more cumbersome.

According to the above analysis, we know that the smooth convening of the owners' meeting is the first step for the owners of the community to exercise their membership rights, but in real life, the convening of the owners' meeting will encounter many obstacles. If the owners want to realize democratic autonomy, the first step is to hold the owners' meeting. Although it is not realistic to put all the management work in charge of the owners' meeting, the owners' meeting is the premise to deal with the property management work.

The voting mechanism of the (II) owners' meeting is not perfect.

The owners of the community express their will through the owners' meeting, and each owner hopes to safeguard their rights and interests through the owners' meeting, so the formulation of the voting mechanism is particularly important. The voting mechanism includes the voting method and the calculation of voting rights. The owners' meeting usually adopts the method of voting by all the owners. At present, the calculation and distribution of voting rights are different for each country. At present, there are mainly four ways. First, one person, one vote. This method, which distributes tickets according to the specific number of proprietary parts owned, is used in most democratic regions and countries in Switzerland, Germany and Taiwan. Second, the right to vote is distributed according to the proportion of ownership of the building. Japan and France use this method. Third, the right to vote is allocated according to the number of houses owned by each owner. The United States mainly uses this method. Fourth, voting rights are allocated based on the size of the floor space of the owner-owned dwelling.

From the above, it is known that there are two main methods of calculating the differentiated ownership of buildings, namely, according to the number of owners and the proportion of buildings. These two methods have advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, when the unit area is roughly the same, the first calculation method is more reasonable. However, in the event of a large difference in the area of each unit, the larger party will consider this method to be unfair. On the other hand, using the second method, the rights and interests of the owners of the party with the smaller share of control will not be protected, but only at the request of the party with the larger share of control. If the developer is also regarded as the owner, if the building is sold only 20% of the total, then it means that the developer has 80% of the voting rights, then it means that when voting on a certain matter, even if the 20% of the owners have voted in support, if the developer votes against it, the resolution cannot be passed, which will lead to a veto, at this time, the rights and interests of these owners cannot be protected.

At present, by analyzing the provisions of Article 12 of the Property Management Regulations and Article 278 of the Civil Code, it can be seen that China adopts a combination of ordinary majority and special majority. This approach seems reasonable and successfully avoids the risks associated with adopting only one voting method. However, this method does not take into account China's national conditions. Once a resolution is put on hold, there is a risk of loss. The loss is ultimately borne by all the owners collectively, so this method does not produce substantial protection of the owners' members' rights. It is worth noting that the requirements of the Civil Code for double voting are more stringent than those of the property Management regulations, whether according to "the superior law is superior to the lower law" or "the new law is superior to the old law", the new provisions of the Civil Code should prevail in practice.

(III) owners' committee litigation status is not clear

On the issue of whether the owners' committee is the subject of law, the regulations vary from country to country. Among them, the countries that recognize the legal personality of the management group include the United States, France, and Germany. These countries believe that the owners' committee is a subsidiary body of the owners' assembly, is a specific executive body, and does not have the status of a legal person.

The law of our country does not stipulate whether the owners' committee has the independent civil subject qualification, and the lack of this content will also make the owners encounter many problems in safeguarding their rights.

(IV) owner autonomy supervision mechanism is not perfect

The owners' meeting, as the decision-making body for the owners to exercise the right of membership, is the authority; and the owners' committee is the specific executive organ of the owners' meeting. They all have the power given to them by the owners. But we all know that power without supervision may lead to the occurrence of abuse of power, so it is necessary to carry out effective supervision.

Although my country stipulated some supervision clauses in the "Administrative Measures for New Urban Residential Distromes" in 1994, due to the long history and relatively simple and general, it does not have much substantive significance for dealing with the current community problems. In the current law, although Article 287 of the Civil Code provides for the remedy of rights, it is too general and too simple to really protect the exercise of the rights of owners. Although the owners' committee, as a permanent body, can supervise some matters, because the law does not give real power to its supervision, the supervision of the owners' committee is not real supervision.

Obstacle Clearance Analysis of the Exercise of Owners' Membership Rights in 3. Residential Areas

(I) Improve the Convening System of Owners' Congress

1.Improve the conditions for convening the owners' meeting

First of all, it should be affirmed that the developer belongs to the category of the owner, because the developer is the owner of the unsold house, and of course also enjoys the right of the owner's membership. However, such regulations will cause developers to be lazy in organizing the first owners' meeting, so that the way for other owners to exercise their membership rights will be stifled and the rights of other owners cannot be protected. Therefore, we need to consider how the conditions for the first owners' meeting should be more reasonable. The author believes that to improve the relevant laws in the future, the conditions for the convening of the first unified owners' meeting should be clearly defined. At present, there is a view that the proportion of the area of the delivered exclusive part to the total area is taken as the standard, which I do not quite agree. In my opinion, if the developer is lazy in organizing the owners' meeting, as long as several other conditions are met and the procedure is legal, other owners can still hold the owners' meeting. First, the owners' meeting can be held when the delivered exclusive area accounts for 50% of the total area of the building. Second, the house has been delivered for two years. This regulation is made because the sales situation in some residential areas is not very good, and the delivered area has not reached 50% of the total area. Considering that the owners' meeting cannot be held because the proportion requirement has not been met. Third, 20 per cent of owners' nominations called for an owners' meeting. This provision is made because when the developer is lazy to hold the owners' meeting or does not meet the second condition, how to safeguard the rights and interests of these delivered owners. The author believes that the above three conditions to meet any one of the owners of the General Assembly can be held.

2.To specify the person in charge of the first owners' meeting

There is a lot of controversy about the person in charge of the owners' meeting. The most controversial are the owners, real estate developers, government departments. First of all, the new owners do not know much about the sale of the house, and the new owners are not suitable for understanding each other, which makes it unreasonable to be the person in charge of the first owners' meeting. Secondly, although the real estate developers have the best understanding of the sale of the whole community, in reality, most of the real estate developers are lazy in organizing the owners' meeting, and it is not appropriate to regard the real estate developers as the person in charge of the owners' meeting. Finally, I think a comprehensive comparison, the relevant government departments as the first owners of the General Assembly is more appropriate. The performance of this responsibility by government departments can appropriately supervise real estate developers. In addition, the idea of taking relevant government departments as the person in charge of the first owners' meeting can improve the phenomenon of administrative personnel shirking their responsibilities to a certain extent. At the same time, it can also improve the current situation that it is difficult to hold the first owners' meeting.

When the above three situations of holding the first owners' meeting are met, the relevant government departments are obliged to notify the owners of the community. This notice can be made by public announcement. If the owners still do not apply after the announcement, the relevant government departments shall not take the initiative to hold the owners' meeting. This is also a restriction on the right of government departments to convene owners' meetings.

(II) improve the voting mechanism of the owners' assembly

In terms of the voting mechanism of the owners' meeting, our country currently adopts the "double majority", which is more scientific and rigorous than the previous single voting method. The "double majority decision" requires more than half of the owners and more than half of the construction area, so that the decision can be as fair as possible. But this provision may also lead to some other problems. On the one hand, there may be situations where the developer has not been able to vote because the voting conditions are not met. On the other hand, if the developer still has more than half of the properties that have not been sold, and the unsold properties occupy an area of the total area. More than 50%, then when the owners' meeting needs to vote on a certain matter, if the owners vote mostly in favor and the developers vote against, then the matter still cannot be passed and cannot be implemented smoothly. This is undoubtedly a major obstacle on the road to the rights of owners.

The author believes that the improvement of the voting mechanism of the owners' meeting can be started from the following aspects. First of all, in order to avoid a one-vote veto situation, we can limit the voting rights of large owners. For example, if the owner owns more than 30% of the floor area, then his voting rights are up to 30%. Such measures can not only take care of the interests of the owners, but also take care of more small owners, achieve a certain degree of fairness, and avoid the occurrence of large owners manipulating the voting results. Secondly, the author thinks that the cumulative voting system in commercial law can be referred to when the relevant laws are perfected in the future. The cumulative voting system allows for more consideration of the rights and interests of small owners. Finally, I think the voting method can be more diversified with the development of the times. Instead of the owner directly exercising the right to vote, it may take the form of a proxy vote or a person acting in concert. In addition, due to the development of communication facilities, mobile phone voting and electronic voting can be adopted to allow more and more owners to participate in the atmosphere of democratic management and community autonomy.

(III) clarify the litigation status of the owners' committee

First of all, through the study of foreign laws, we know that some countries have determined the legal personality of the owners' committee by enacting laws, such as France and Japan. However, our country does not clearly stipulate that the owners' committee has the qualification of civil litigation subject. The main reason is that the main body that really enjoys the right of owner membership is each owner, not the owner committee.

In fact, in judicial practice, the owners' committee can usually act as the plaintiff, and there are few cases as the defendant. Under normal circumstances, the property company and other owners of the committee, the court generally does not file a case. The author believes that rights and obligations should exist at the same time. The owners' committee can not only act as the plaintiff, but also act as the defendant. These two aspects constitute the litigation status of the owners' committee.

In addition, as mentioned above, the owners' committee does not have its own independent property, so how to bear the expenses incurred when it loses the lawsuit is also a question that we need to think about. On the one hand, the author believes that when the owners' committee participates in the lawsuit as the plaintiff, the benefits arising from winning the lawsuit should be shared by all the owners. As for how to deal with the arrears, the author thinks that a special account can be set up in the bank to keep the money and property. When it is necessary to point out the money and property for the common interests of all owners, the owners' committee will vote on the item. On the other hand, if the owners' committee participates in the lawsuit as the defendant, the risk of losing the lawsuit should be shared by all the owners. Of course, there may be cases of abuse of litigation rights by the owners' committee. The convention should specify in detail the pre-procedure required for litigation and how to supervise matters.

(IV) Recognition of Owners' Independent Litigation Status

Article 287 of the Civil Code stipulates: "Owners have the right to request civil liability for acts of construction units, property service enterprises or other managers and other owners that infringe upon their legitimate rights and interests." This provision affirms the independent litigation status of the owner. Of course, the owner, as a civil subject, also enjoys the right of action under the law. However, we need to seriously consider how to understand the "legitimate rights and interests" stipulated by law. Of course, if the property enterprise infringes on the personal and property safety of the owner, the owner can infringe the property company to file a lawsuit for the defendant, at this time the claim is based on tort liability. However, in many cases, because the exclusive part of the building distinction ownership is inseparable from the common part, it is not easy to distinguish whether the interest belongs to the owner's individual legitimate rights and interests or to all owners. In judicial practice, what is the interests of a single owner and what is the interests of all owners are not easy to judge in many cases. Consequently, there is no uniformity in this judgement either. In addition, in the trial of such cases, the court often believes that the management of the community requires a joint resolution, but the owners have no right to file a lawsuit, and ruled to dismiss the lawsuit. The author believes that such a judgment does not protect the owners' membership rights well, and there are unfair judgments, which may lead to more vicious incidents. For such group disputes, unified regulations should be made as soon as possible to refine the stripes so as not to cause more problems in the future.

The author believes that when the owners of the community file a lawsuit against the infringement of their rights or the rights and interests of all the owners, the specific handling methods of the court should be discussed according to the situation. Among them, it is very important to judge whether the demands of the owners are contrary to the common interests of all the owners in the community. If the proceeds of the action belong to all owners, then the owner's claim should be upheld by the court unless the individual owner who filed the action can calculate his or her specific share of the proceeds. When it is not possible to specify a specific share, the proceeds of the lawsuit belong to all owners, and the court should not support the owner who filed the lawsuit when making a request for the return of the proceeds, etc.

To sum up, the author believes that the litigation status of independent owners should be recognized in the future legislation. Every owner has the right to assert his or her rights by initiating judicial proceedings.

(V) Improve the Supervision Mechanism of Owners' Autonomy

1.Establish regular report system of owners' committee

Since the reform and opening up, although people's enthusiasm for autonomous management has been improved to a certain extent, the owners' awareness of rights protection is still relatively backward. In real life, there are still some owners who do not understand the rights of owners' members. The owners themselves did not seriously supervise the owners' committee and lacked a certain degree of enthusiasm. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a regular reporting system for the owners' committee. The owners' committee regularly reports its work to the owners' meeting, and all owners can supervise the owners' committee and urge the owners' committee to perform its duties seriously.

2.Set up the Supervisory Committee

We all know that only the necessary supervision of power can make the right to better run. Due to the owners of public affairs to the lack of the necessary concern, the law to give all the owners of the right of supervision has not been well exercised. Therefore, it is necessary to set up a supervisory body to supervise the work of the owners' committee. The Company Law requires companies to set up supervisors, and it is very necessary to learn from the Company Law to set up a supervisory committee when improving the relevant laws in the future. First of all, the supervisory committee is not unique to our country in the future. By studying the laws of other countries, the author found that Japan, Germany and other countries have also established permanent institutions similar to the supervisory committee to perform supervisory duties full-time. Secondly, the status of the supervisory committee should be the same as that of the owners' committee, which belongs to the subordinate organization of the owners' meeting, under the leadership of the owners' meeting and under the supervision of the owners' meeting. Thirdly, with regard to the member requirements of the supervision committee, the author believes that the same owner cannot be both a member of the owners' committee and a member of the monitoring committee. At the same time, if an owner is a member of the supervisory committee, then the family members he lives with cannot be members of the owners' committee to avoid conflicts of interest. Finally, on the issue of the remuneration of the Supervisory Committee, the author believes that the specific provisions should be unified through the resolution of the owners' meeting to avoid the problems caused by the unclear provisions.

(VI) the way to perfect the owner's remedy for the defective resolution of the owners' assembly

1.Improve the provisions of the owner's right of revocation in our country.

At present, Article 280 of the Civil Code provides for a right of revocation, which is called the "owner's right of revocation" in academic circles ". The original right of revocation exists mostly in the field of creditor's rights, is a kind of after-the-fact relief behavior, mainly for the situation is the main meaning of the existence of defects. The main reason for the emergence of the "owners' right of revocation" is that there are defects in the resolutions made by the owners' meeting and the owners' committee, which harms the legitimate interests of some owners. The owner of this part uses the right of revocation as a remedy. The damage to the owner's interests includes direct damage and indirect damage. Direct damage is the direct deprivation of a benefit from the owner, while indirect benefits mainly refer to the damage that may be received by the owner for a period of time in the future. The right of revocation as a remedy for damage to the owners' rights and interests can protect the owners' members' rights to a certain extent, but because the law does not make clear provisions for its applicable objects and methods of exercise, the court often cannot maintain consistency when making a decision.

2.Additional resolution invalid action

At present, the invalidity of the resolution can only be brought through the action of revocation. We know that there is a time requirement for revocation, and revocation must be filed within one year, otherwise no revocation can be filed for more than one year. We know that the effectiveness of a resolution is inextricably linked to whether it meets both procedural and substantive requirements. Then, the substantive content of the resolution is illegal, but the owner discovered it only a year later. If the cancellation lawsuit cannot be filed at this time, how will the legitimate rights and interests of the owner be protected? This is a question we need to think about at present. How should the owners remedy their rights? In this question, combined with the provisions of Article 19 of the Property Management Regulations, China's current practice is to grant this right to the administrative authorities.

At present, the usual practice in our country is to hand over the right to file an invalid lawsuit to the administrative organ, but the author thinks that only by handing over the right to the judicial organ can the right of the owner be truly protected, so I think the lawsuit of invalid resolution should be added. There are three main reasons: first, the judiciary is the most able to uniformly confirm the effectiveness of the resolution, can set invalid standards, and has the most credibility. Second, the last line of defense for fairness is justice, and it is up to the judicial organs to confirm the effectiveness of the resolution that can best protect the interests of the owners and protect their interests from infringement. Third, the nature of the owners' meeting has many similarities with the company's general meeting of shareholders. When determining the validity of the resolutions of the owners' meeting, we can learn from the provisions of the Civil Code on the general meeting of shareholders.

The lawsuit of invalid confirmation is aimed at the following two situations: the first is that the content of the resolution violates the pre-established provisions of laws and regulations, and the second is that the content of the resolution violates the provisions of the management statute. The invalidity of a resolution means that it is invalid AB initio and has no legal effect.

(VII) relaxes owner's burden of proof

As we all know, the burden of proof mainly means that the parties need to collect and provide evidence for their own claims, and have the responsibility to use that evidence to prove the facts of the case they claim or to benefit their own claims, otherwise, they bear the risk that the claim cannot be established. The general principle of the allocation of the burden of proof is "who claims, who gives evidence", but in the owner's membership litigation, this principle of the allocation of the burden of proof is generally not used. There are three main reasons:

First, because it is difficult for owners to access the core information in property services, the collection of evidence is in a very passive position. In addition, the owners also lack of professional knowledge of property management, and the information usually provided is not enough. And the property management enterprise is more professional, by its provision to prove the required information more fair and reasonable.

Second, in the owner's membership litigation, under normal circumstances, the property service company is in an advantageous position, while the owner is in a disadvantageous position. When the law provides relief to the weak subject, it not only needs the relief right in the substantive law, but also needs the relief channel in the procedural law.

Third, in real life, property service companies often shirk their responsibilities, conceal facts, and destroy information. When it is necessary to prove whether the quality of the property service is qualified, if the burden of proof is assigned to the owner, the property service company may despise the performance of the contract. The author believes that in the litigation of owners' membership rights, because the difficulty of proof for owners is much higher than that of property service companies, in order to maintain the principle of fairness, the burden of proof for owners should be relaxed and the rights and interests of owners should be protected.