It is possible to expropriate a problematic co-owner up to the sale of their apartment at auction

It is not uncommon for an apartment owner in a building to disrupt the peaceful enjoyment of their property by other apartment owners through their actions, to fail to meet their obligations that all owners are required to fulfill, or to refuse to sign any decision that would improve the condition of the entire property. Such a situation can last for a long time and significantly affect the quality of life of other owners. In such cases, owners either personally or with the help of a residents’ representative or building manager try in various ways to peacefully resolve the situation, which often does not end successfully.

In these cases, co-owners remain unaware that they can, through their decisions and with the help of the court, not only eliminate the violations that have occurred but also effectively prevent that owner from committing further violations. This is achieved by excluding that owner from the co-ownership community, which ultimately leads to the sale of their apartment at auction.

At the request of the majority

According to the provision of Article 97 of the Ownership and Other Real Rights Act (ZOV), each co-owner of the same property, which consists of land with a building or building rights with a building, is obliged to act particularly carefully towards others when exercising their rights. Otherwise, their co-owners may request their exclusion from the co-ownership community under the conditions specified in Articles 98 and 99 of that law.

Thus, Article 98 of the ZOV stipulates that co-owners who together hold the majority of co-ownership shares may decide to request the exclusion of a certain co-owner from the co-ownership community if there is any of the reasons prescribed by that same article.

Thus, a decision to exclude a certain co-owner can be made if they do not fulfill the obligations arising from the community, especially if they do not pay the due amounts even by the end of the hearing preceding the judgment of the first-instance court, if they use their property or parts used by other co-owners in a manner that significantly harms the interests of other co-owners, if their reckless, rude, or generally inappropriate behavior makes communal living burdensome for other co-owners, or if they commit a criminal offense against the property, morality, or physical integrity of a co-owner or another person residing in the house, and it is not a matter of acts so minor that they should be disregarded.

It is crucial to emphasize that the actions and behaviors of the co-owner’s spouse and other family members living with them, as well as persons who use parts of the property with their consent, which they have failed to prevent as much as possible, are considered actions of that co-owner. Co-owners who have decided to request the exclusion of a certain co-owner will file a lawsuit requesting the court to determine the existence of grounds for exclusion and decide that the defendant is obliged to alienate their co-ownership share and vacate the premises, as otherwise, at the request of the plaintiff, the defendant’s co-ownership share will be sold at public auction. By having another person acquire the co-ownership share, the community with the excluded co-owner ceases.

At the request of the minority

Article 99 of the ZOV also stipulates that if a co-owner has harmed another co-owner, who has not provoked them in any way, through reckless, rude, or generally inappropriate behavior, made communal living burdensome for them, or committed a criminal offense against their property, morality, or physical integrity or that of any of their household members, and it is not a matter of acts so minor that they should be disregarded, then the harmed co-owner may file a lawsuit requesting that the other co-owner refrain from such actions in the future.

In that case as well, the actions and behaviors of the co-owner’s spouse and other family members living with them, as well as persons who use parts of the property with their consent, which they have failed to prevent as much as possible, are considered actions of that co-owner. If such actions continue even after the final judgment in which the court has decided that the defendant must refrain from them, the harmed co-owner may also file a lawsuit under Article 98 of the ZOV.

The decision is up to the co-owners

The courts have pointed out in their decisions some of the actions that are grounds for excluding a co-owner from the community. For example, these include refusal to sign a co-ownership agreement, refusal to sign a condominium agreement, failure to settle costs arising from co-ownership, failure to pay the reserve fund, refusal to give consent in legalization procedures, etc.

The Ownership Act prescribes grounds for exclusion, but we believe there is no obstacle for co-owners to clearly specify in the co-ownership agreement or even in the house rules ‘duties arising from the community’ so that a violation of those duties can also be a reason for excluding a co-owner from the community. Although co-owners rarely decide to initiate such proceedings because they find it difficult to agree even on less important matters, which is why judicial practice regarding this institution is scarce, this institution is the ultimate measure for peaceful and quality coexistence.