Abuse Of Joint Ownership Right In Greece

Abuse Of Joint Ownership Right In Greece By Christos ILIOPOULOS* Athens, 8 August 2021 You may have a legitimate right. However, the way you exercise it in the specific time, conditions and general circumstances, may be against common sense, good faith, moral rules and finally, against the law. Greek law (article 281 of Civil Code) states that the exercise of a legitimate right should not be done in a way which is against good faith and moral rules. This would amount to abuse of right, which is against the law. The One Member Court of First Instance of Patras dealt with such a case in its ruling No. 61/2021. A man and a woman had formed a partnership and free union, living together since 1995. In 2004 they bought a piece of land outside Patras and in 2005 they built together a house in it, where they started living as partners. They owned the land and the house jointly, 50% each. Under Greek law, each of the two parties owned an undivided share of 50% (ab indivisio) on the same property, with a right for each of them to use every part of the same property. They were using the property together, living in it, until in 2009 problems appeared in their relationship. The man occasionally left the property to live at other places, only to come back some time later. In August 2017 the man left the property and the civil union (partnership) for good. About two years later, he filed a lawsuit action against the woman (his former partner), claiming compensation for the use of the common property exclusively by her from 2014 until 2019. In other words, his claim was that during that period of time, she had been using not only her 50% of the property, but also his own 50% of the same property, gaining a profit from her use of his 50% share. The man specifically claimed that the rental value of his 50% of the common property during the years he occasionally left the common property and during the time he had left the property for good, was worth 21,000 euros, since during those periods of time his former partner had been using exclusively the common property, excluding him from the use of his own 50% of the property. The woman argued at the court that the man’s claim constituted an abuse of his right to the 50% ownership of the jointly owned property, since he left the property for good without ever notifying her of his wish to claim rents from her. She went on that since they were former partners, she was entitled to expect that he would not claim the rental value of his 50% share from her. The court examined a number of written depositions by witnesses of the two parties, pertaining to the specific circumstances and the facts of the case throughout the number of years the couple stayed together, and during the time after their separation until the filing of the civil lawsuit action by the man. The court also considered other pieces of evidence and the arguments the two adversaries presented. The court’s final conclusion was that, in principle, it is true that the man had the right to use his 50% share on the property, and that in a general sense, the claim that he had been deprived of such right could be put forward. However, in this specific case the man’s filing of the lawsuit action claiming compensation constituted an abuse of his rights on the 50% of the ownership of the common property. The core of the court’s ruling is that the plaintiff (the man) may have the legitimate right to use his 50% on the common property, which includes the right to reside in it and use it as a joint owner, as well as to collect rents from it. And that if an owner or co-owner of a property is deprived of his rights to use the property, that owner or co-owner has the right to bring an action and claim compensation which is equal to the rental value of the property of his share of the property for the specific period of time. Nonetheless, in the specific circumstances of this particular case, the court found that with regards to the land, which included 50 olive trees, the woman (respondent) had not encroached on the property rights of her partner and that she had not even collected the harvest of the olives from 2017 until 2019. Moreover, with regards to the exclusive use by her of the common property (land and house) after the man (plaintiff) left the premises for good, the court ruled that the man never indicated at any time to his former partner that he would claim compensation from her for the exclusive use by her of the property and that he never notified her that he intended to claim his share from the use of the common house and land. This omission by the plaintiff made the respondent (the woman) validly believe and expect that he would not claim from her anything, considering the fact that they were former partners. In the light of the above evidence, (which is just a brief outline of the case and cannot describe its full details of the circumstances), the exercise by the man of his right to co-own and co-use the specific property and thus to collect rents for his 50% share, is against good faith and the moral rules and therefore the court dismissed his lawsuit action for compensation. *Christos ILIOPOULOS, attorney at the Supreme Court of Greece , LL.M. www.greekadvocate.eu e-mail: bm-bioxoi@otenet.gr