A detailed insight into the legal challenges associated with the nuisance of co-owners in the context of co-ownership, especially focusing on the issues of proving co-owners in court.
Co-owner nuisance, especially in the context of co-ownership, is a complex legal issue that often comes before the courts. One of the most common forms of such nuisance is the unauthorized changing of the lock on the front door of the apartment and the subsequent refusal to hand over the new key to the other co-owner. This situation, although seemingly simple, can become legally complicated, especially when the defendant disputes the plaintiff’s previous co-owner of the apartment. In the following, we analyze these scenarios from a legal point of view, referring to the relevant case law.
Burden of Proof:
When a dispute arises over the nuisance of a co-owner, the key element is the burden of proof. In situations where the defendant claims that the plaintiff did not have a roommate because he did not stay in the apartment for a long time, the plaintiff is required to prove the opposite. Here, the legal complexity lies in defining and proving “co-owner”.
Court Positions:
According to the existing judicial practice, the plaintiff who keeps the key to the apartment and has personal belongings in it is considered not to have lost his co-owner, even if he did not physically stay in the apartment for some time. This view derives from the concept that keys represent “means of possession”, implying that the holder of the keys still has de facto authority over the apartment. Therefore, the mere retention of keys and personal belongings in the apartment may be sufficient to challenge the defendant’s claim of loss of co-ownership.
Legal Consequences and Solutions:
In cases where co-owner interference is proven, the court will order the defendant to restore the ownership situation as it was at the time of the interference and prohibit such or similar interference in the future.
Examples from court practice:
“It follows from the indisputable circumstances that the plaintiff does not live in the house, but with a neighbour, but she did not lose her roommate because her belongings are in the house, and she also has the keys to the front door. The defendant himself admits that he changed the lock on the main entrance door and does not want to let the plaintiff into the house until she returns the things she took.” Žs in Zg, Gž-6295/93 of September 14, 1993.
“Not only that from the actions of the plaintiff, leaving the apartment in the circumstances of the specific case, it cannot be reasonably concluded that he left things of his own free will, because it was established that the plaintiff left the apartment after an argument and a physical confrontation with the defendant, but in addition, the first-instance court found that the plaintiff left the apartment keeping the key to the apartment and not taking all his belongings from the apartment, so based on the factual situation established in this way, he correctly assessed as unfounded the complaint of the defendant about the termination of possession by leaving things of his own volition. Namely, by keeping the apartment key as a means of possession, because the owner of the keys to the apartment also has de facto authority over the apartment, indicates the groundlessness of the defendant’s complaint.” Žs in Zg, Gž-8738/00 of November 7, 2000.
“In the specific case, the fact that the defendant temporarily left the apartment due to going to work in another country, does not produce the effect of losing the right to co-occupancy. Given that the plaintiff resides and has a permanent job in Maribor, she lives in Maribor during the week and in the weekends in Zagreb, in the apartment in question, it cannot be concluded that she left her co-owner if she did not come to the apartment in question for several weekends in a row, especially if one takes into account the indisputable fact that until the moment when the lock on the door of the apartment was changed, the plaintiff and the defendant were co-owners of the apartment in question , despite the fact that they have been officially divorced since 2006 and the fact that the plaintiff has been working in Slovenia since 2005.” Žs in Zg, Gž-8384/09 of February 23, 2010.)
Conclusion:
The nuisance of co-owners in the context of co-owned apartments is a challenging legal area that requires a detailed analysis of each individual case. The importance of proving co-ownership, as well as the interpretation of what exactly this means in practice, are key elements in resolving such disputes. While case law provides a certain framework, each case is unique and requires an individualized approach. Therefore, it is necessary to consult with legal experts to ensure the protection of your rights and interests in such circumstances.