Servitude by Destination of Original Owner vs. Co-Ownership Law and Separate Ownership Determination
France (FR)
Synthèse Legislator
Généré par l'IAOne party purchased a villa in a co-owned building in 1968, which had a window opening onto land later acquired by the other party who subsequently built a house with openings facing the first party's property; the first party sued for the removal of direct views, and the second party counter-sued for the removal of the first party's window, with the appellate court siding with the first party by finding an existing servitude by destination of the original owner, but the Supreme Court quashed the decision because the appellate court failed to determine if the buildings and lands belonged separately to different owners, a necessary step before applying servitude rules related to the destination of the original owner, especially concerning the application of the 1965 co-ownership law.
Regeste Legislator
Généré par l'IAServitude by Destination of Original Owner vs. Co-Ownership Law and Separate Ownership Determination: One party purchased a villa in a co-owned building in 1968, which had a window opening onto land later acquired by the other party who subsequently built a house with openings facing the first party's property; the first party sued for the removal of direct views, and the second party counter-sued for the removal of the first party's window, with the appellate court siding with the first party by finding an existing servitude by destination of the original owner, but the Supreme Court quashed the decision because the appellate court failed to determine if the buildings and lands belonged separately to different owners, a necessary step before applying servitude rules related to the destination of the original owner, especially concerning the application of the 1965 co-ownership law.
Mots-clés
Généré par l'IADécisions connexes
Généré par l'IAQuestions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator
Généré par l'IAThese provisions were cited in the reasoning to frame the substantive issue regarding servitudes, although the cassation was based on a lack of legal basis, not a misapplication of these specific articles in the final order.
Texte complet
SUR LE PREMIER MOYEN :
VU LES ARTICLES 637, 675 ET SUIVANTS DU CODE CIVIL, ENSEMBLE LES ARTICLES 1 ET 3 DE LA LOI DU 10 JUILLET 1965;
ATTENDU, SELON L'ARRET ATTAQUE (RENNES, 13 DECEMBRE 1978), QUE CADET A ACHETE EN 1968, DANS UN ENSEMBLE IMMOBILIER EN COPROPRIETE, UNE VILLA QUI COMPORTAIT UNE FENETRE OUVRANT SUR UN TERRAIN, POSTERIEUREMENT ACQUIS PAR AYMERIAL ET SUR LEQUEL CE DERNIER, EN 1974, AVAIT CONSTRUIT UNE MAISON DONT UNE PORTE ET UNE FENETRE DONNAIENT SUR LE FONDS CADET; QUE CADET A ASSIGNE AYMERIAL EN SUPPRESSION DE VUES DROITES, QU'AYMERIAL A FORME UNE DEMANDE RECONVENTIONNELLE EN SUPPRESSION DE LA FENETRE DE LA MAISON CADET; ATTENDU QUE POUR FAIRE DROIT A LA DEMANDE DE CADET ET DEBOUTER AYMERIAL, L'ARRET ENONCE QUE LA LOI DU 10 JUILLET 1965 NE PREVOIT PAS DE DEROGATION AUX REGLES DU CODE CIVIL RELATIVES AUX SERVITUDES LEGALES, QUE LE REGLEMENT DE COPROPRIETE NE CONTENAIT PAS DE DISPOSITIONS PERMETTANT D'Y DEROGER, ET QUE LA VILLA CADET BENEFICIAIT SUR LE FONDS AYMERIAL D'UNE SERVITUDE PAR DESTINATION DU PERE DE FAMILLE;
QU'EN STATUANT AINSI, SANS RECHERCHER SI LES TERRAINS ET LES BATIMENTS APPARTENAIENT DE FACON PRIVATIVE A DES PROPRIETAIRES DIFFERENTS, LA COUR D'APPEL N'A PAS DONNE DE BASE LEGALE A SA DECISION;
PAR CES MOTIFS, ET SANS QU'IL Y AIT LIEU DE STATUER SUR LE SECOND MOYEN :
CASSE ET ANNULE L'ARRET RENDU ENTRE LES PARTIES LE 13 DECEMBRE 1978 PAR LA COUR D'APPEL DE RENNES; REMET, EN CONSEQUENCE, LA CAUSE ET LES PARTIES AU MEME ET SEMBLABLE ETAT OU ELLES ETAIENT AVANT LEDIT ARRET ET, POUR ETRE FAIT DROIT, LES RENVOIE DEVANT LA COUR D'APPEL DE LIMOGES.