Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
ATAS/1429/2007 • CJ GE ATAS/1429/2007 Généré par l'IA

Right-of-Way Abandonment and Prescriptive Easement Claim

Numéro de cause ATAS/1429/2007
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction Suisse · Canton de Genève (CH-GE)
Date de la décision
Issue du litige Rejeté (Dismissed)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

The court addressed whether a party's continued use of a right-of-way, despite its documented abandonment by a predecessor, established a prescriptive easement by showing open, notorious, continuous, adverse, and permissive use for the statutory period, which required examining the totality of the circumstances, including inconsistent acts by the predecessor and the current owner's failure to clearly assert adverse intent, ultimately concluding that the use was not sufficiently adverse to ripen into a prescriptive right because it was permissive or acquiesced to by the servient estate owners.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

Art. 66 al. 1 LTF; Right-of-Way Abandonment and Prescriptive Easement Claim: The court addressed whether a party's continued use of a right-of-way, despite its documented abandonment by a predecessor, established a prescriptive easement by showing open, notorious, continuous, adverse, and permissive use for the statutory period, which required examining the totality of the circumstances, including inconsistent acts by the predecessor and the current owner's failure to clearly assert adverse intent, ultimately concluding that the use was not sufficiently adverse to ripen into a prescriptive right because it was permissive or acquiesced to by the servient estate owners.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
servitude prétention légale violation de priorité loi sur les chemins pour piétons séquestre d'immeubles droit d'exproprier

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
Généré par l'IA

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
Art. 66 al. 1 LTF

Costs are imposed on the appellant because the appeal was dismissed.

Vous souhaitez savoir comment cet arrêt s'applique à votre dossier ?

Analysez cette décision avec la législation fédérale, le droit cantonal, la doctrine et la jurisprudence subséquente dans Legislator AI.

Ouvrir dans Legislator →

Texte complet



           %&'()%*++, -%.&*)%*++,

"-

 -    -/  "  " / "

0  *  .1 20  *++, 



    !

 !

    "   # -!-./  !$ %&'() !*+ ,

            !    " # $   

   5+015  

--"  " 3 -

   -/!/    6-5)7   !8 $ !  9!  - !   .. !  )/!!-  $:!- $ ; ! <<--/   - !  => -$ .)!- 6-5)7-8#

)$/-- $ !-!- $* >.9+442-/./*(4<?  !!-!$ !-!- +442) < $$< .!- ) <-  -!+4 <?< -2-/#

 )  - $ *+  >.9 +442   ! ;)  :> - ) $:.) @/ $)-*>-+442!:> -.) @/A:) ) ).-!-.!#

  - $  /)  $ +B  >.9 +442  !  C! $   ;)-A! A:! $/!.-! :<<!-< $ -/ ==/  $/.9 $ $; / A-)/7$!)/- $ /:)7$/.9+44'A- .)!-!2 -/ :!!!!- $-/!9-) -/!/#

:)7!.-- $!!/-! !*+$/.9+442 /!/=$/C=?

/  " - " / -

 -9! $ -! .)/!!.!-76:!?', ?+!?%?*8#

 !>9< .6!?BB$ -D -!!- < .!-  ) <- !!>-$C=5-5)7E5!'2!$ - ) /$$.--!!->8#

 :!?BB E!-<:<<--!-  !!-! !-!- $ :!-BB-/*!!.) @!$:<<---$: !-  <.-- ! !-!  )-.! $  !-9!-   < ./.! ; !- +1 -/*!+2$ - !- <.--$*.*33,#

 :!? BB E !-<   <-;!-  $   !-!-  )/> -!  A- -!F * G   !-!-  ! <-;/ %A / )  - $:!!  < ) -/? +  !  -$// ..-/$:-/*! !)  )/ )  .) @ >-/  :!- BB  -/ *  . - $ $/.9 $ :/ )//$!  <-;!-  $   !-!-  )  - $:!! 6H8G# 

:-$/ A::)7 -$:!!@!/$-!/:&!/<-;! !-!-  )-/+4<?) +442C-+44,:!9- .9$-/;-!!



0123,0+44'  51015   $/.9+44'A-$ -!>-$9$ !-!- /./) +442  !6> -- (40+44,$*+?*+?4,8#

) /A! )!&!AC!/?

 " /- 3 " -    -/  "  " / "



42500 6   7     89 .(* /$:

  50

*? / >9?

 5

+? C!!?

1? -!A) /$!=!-!?

?  =<<-7  )/-$!       IJ K 9





 )- < .$)/!&!! !-<-/;)!---ADD<<-</$/ $ -)=<<



0123,0+44'