Facts
The plaintiffs, [A.X.] and [B.X.] , are the joint owners of Condominium Unit No. 3 (2nd floor) of the building [H.] . The defendant 1, [Y.] , is the sole owner of Condominium Unit No. 1 (basement and ground floor). The defendant 2, [Z.] , rented Condominium Unit No. 1 from [Y.] from November 2003 and expanded it for the expansion of his sports store. The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against [Y.] , [Z.] and the condominium owners' association "Haus [H.] " (defendants 1-3) with the main objective of obliging the defendants to undo the structural changes and restore the condition prior to the renovation. They also claimed compensation for lost rental income during the construction period. The District Court of Maloja and the Cantonal Court of Graubünden dismissed the plaintiffs' claims.Considerations
The Federal Court confirms the decision of the lower courts. It reaches the following conclusions: 1. The resolution of the condominium owners dated 25 August 2003, which approved [Z.] 's construction project, does not violate the quorum requirements. The conversion of the vegetable trade business into a sports store does not constitute a change of purpose within the meaning of Art. 648 para. 2 CC, but merely a change in the use of the property in accordance with Art. 647b para. 1 CC, which is permissible by majority resolution. 2. The transfer of common parts (heating room, partition wall, facade) to the exclusive right of defendant 1 was not formally resolved. Instead, defendant 1 was granted a contractual special right of use to these parts, which is permissible by majority…