A co-owner completed part of the house without your consent: when the court can order its demolition

The Supreme Court emphasized that the reconstruction or extension of part of a shared house by itself is not grounds for its demolition. The decisive factor is whether such work was carried out in accordance with the law and whether it violates the rights of the other co-owner. If, as a result of the reconstruction, a co-owner loses the ability to use the shared property, an appropriate remedy may be to restore the object to its previous state.

The Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of lower courts, which ordered one of the co-owners to demolish the extension and restore the shared basement, while denying the rest of the claims due to lack of proof of violation of the plaintiff's rights. The court also dismissed the cassation appeals of both parties.

Case circumstances

The plaintiff owns 36/100 share of a household in Dnipro. She went to court believing that other co-owners reconstructed part of the house, made extensions, and redesigned the basement without her consent.

In her opinion, as a result of the reconstruction, the building area significantly increased, the basement, which was in shared use, was rebuilt, her kitchen window was blocked, and a garage was constructed over engineering communications. She also challenged the executive committee's decisions that had previously approved the reconstruction and accepted it for use.

The plaintiff requested to annul the local government body's decision on the reconstruction, to oblige the defendants to demolish several extensions, and to restore the basement and its entrance to the previous state.

What the courts decided

The court of first instance partially granted the claim.

It obliged one of the defendants to demolish the extension to the house, restore the shared basement, and its entrance.

At the same time, the court denied the rest of the claims because the plaintiff did not prove that the reconstruction of another part of the house and the garage rebuilding violated her rights. The appellate court agreed with these conclusions.

Arguments of cassation appeals

The plaintiff insisted in the Supreme Court that the disputed extensions were made without her consent as a co-owner and violate her rights. In her opinion, registration of ownership rights to such objects does not eliminate the violations, and her rights should be restored by returning the household to its previous state.

Meanwhile, one of the defendants asked for a complete dismissal of the claim. He argued that the reconstruction was carried out based on the necessary permits, the plaintiff's rights were not violated, and demolishing the extension would be a disproportionate interference with his ownership rights.

Supreme Court's position

The Civil Cassation Court dismissed both cassation appeals.

The court emphasized that the decisive factor in such disputes is whether the disputed extension was carried out in accordance with the law and whether it violates the rights of the other co-owner.

The Supreme Court noted that the right to judicial protection arises only when a right or lawful interest is violated. Therefore, the plaintiff must prove how her rights were violated, and the court must verify these claims considering all established circumstances of the case.

In this case, the courts found that as a result of the extension and redesign, the shared basement was altered, access to it was restricted, and part of the shared property was effectively removed from common use. These facts had already been established by a court decision in a previous case between the same parties, which became final, so they were not subject to re-proving.

The Supreme Court also stressed that according to Article 16 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, the method of protecting civil rights must be effective, i.e., actually eliminate the consequences of the violation. In this case, such a method is restoring the house to the state that existed before the basement redesign.

The panel of judges agreed with the conclusions of the lower courts that preserving the disputed extension and redesign would effectively legitimize the ongoing violation of the plaintiff's rights as a co-owner and contradict principles of fairness, good faith, and reasonableness.

Why the Supreme Court did not agree to demolish all extensions

At the same time, the Civil Cassation Court supported the courts' conclusion to deny claims regarding restoring another reconstructed part of the house and the rebuilt garage to their previous state.

The court noted that reconstruction by itself is not sufficient grounds for interference with ownership rights.

The plaintiff did not provide proper and admissible evidence that the rebuilt garage creates obstacles in using the property or accessing communications, or that the reconstruction of another part of the house caused a real violation of her rights. Arguments about shading of premises and other negative consequences were not supported by expert opinions, technical documentation, inspection results, or other proper evidence. Without such evidence, the court has no legal grounds to apply the corresponding remedy.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the mere fact of reconstruction or rebuilding cannot be grounds for interference with the defendants' ownership rights without proving that such actions actually violate the plaintiff's rights or legally protected interests.

Conclusion of the Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals of both parties and upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances.

Thus, the Civil Cassation Court in case 932/8952/20 confirmed that a co-owner may demand restoration of the object to its previous state, including demolition of an extension, if they prove that construction works actually violate their rights as a co-owner. At the same time, the mere fact of reconstruction or extension without proof of such violation is not sufficient grounds for granting the claim.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page and Instagram to stay updated on the most important events.