The battle for the cabin on Bolsøya, which was inherited in four equal family members in 1939, is now settled. After five years of discussions and a total of three lawsuits, the Supreme Court has concluded.
– Very pleasing
Family Greina which alone has refurbished and used the cottage for the past 25 years, owns it. The other family branches have squandered the opportunity to own and use it – and getting neither harvest values of a potential sale.
– This was a very pleasing result, says lawyer Erik Wold, who represented the active users of the cabin.
Cooperatives Act
The dispute core was how long the co-owners may fail to relate to what they own, without losing their rights.
When only one family branch has restored the cabin from being a ramshackle shack to become habitable, and who also have paid all that is costs associated with it – and have been left alone to use it in over 20 years, so many would say they are the “moral” rightful owner.
According condominium Act, however termination of a co-ownership only happen if the parties so agree. And that was not the case in this case.
Therefore walked case until the Supreme Court.
Important principle
– I perceive this as a principle clarifying case, where it said something about the threshold at which one can lose rights if they fail and what factors will be emphasized in the evaluations. There are several lawyers from around Norway who have contacted me on this issue because they are working on similar issues, says Wold Romsdals Budstikke.
After Romsdal County Court and High Court of Frostating had come to each their conclusions in the battle, it was up to the Supreme Court to make the final decision. Here it ended 3-2 in favor the active user of the cabin, suggesting that neither of Norway’s highest court this was a simple matter.
– No, this was not an obvious cause, we waited for the verdict with great interest. There have been some previous decisions of the Supreme Court goes on similar issues, but it has not been clarified state of the law in this area.
Mountain cabin
The majority concluded that the cottage was ripe for demolition and worthless when the current user initiated rehabilitation work in the early 1990s. The value of the cabin before and after rehabilitation has great significance for the decision.
Today’s use of cabin rescued built, underlined majority. If it had been up to the other co-owners, would the decayed completely. At the lodge still exists, and thus now have a real economic value, is solely a result of the efforts of the current user of the cabin. “Technical and functional is the building that stands there today other than the one that was there when rehabilitation began,” writes the majority.
Passivity penalties up
They also support the High Court’s view that it was his responsibility to ensure evidence that the other co-owners gave up their own interest before the rehabilitation started or initiate the condominium was dissolved.
Still, says Supreme Court as the work progressed, the “duty of more and more pushed over” on the other co-owners. When they handed to him, through a period of 18 years to pay all insurance and government taxes, while they had to understand the scope of rehabilitation, they should understand that this would have consequences.
At the user of the cabin regarded it as his when rehabilitation work was done after 18 years, was thus reasonable, thought the Supreme Court. Thus they concluded lapse of condominiums by the non-statutory basis.
No comments:
Post a Comment