There was a time when the lords enjoyed absolute rights in their castle. Nowadays, some co-owners still think that is the case.
A co-owner of a building consisting of two units, decides, without consulting their counterpart, to have plans prepared for the construction of a terrace on a common area, adjacent to their unit.
The co-owner, after obtaining a permit from the city, informs the other co-owner four days before the start of the work. The other co-owner asks them to postpone the project, expressing concerns about the impact it could have on both the declaration of co-ownership and access to their parking spot.
The co-owner informs them that they "tried to cancel the contract but without success". The structure for the terrace, resembling an observation tower, is installed the next day. The situation deteriorates. The co-owner claims that the co-ownership operates informally and that the declaration of co-ownership has been modified without formality, both with previous co-owners and with the other co-owner. The other co-owner argues that they never gave their consent, even verbally, to the work.
The Court of Appeal* concludes that the two co-owners never discussed and developed the project together, and that a simple meeting between them cannot be considered an offer to contract, in the absence of a discussion on the essential elements related to the development of a possible terrace. The Court of Appeal confirms the judgment of the Superior Court which ordered the "removal of the metal structure".
For some, living in a co-ownership can resemble a life of luxury. But it is important to remind them that they live with other castle owners and that their castle can turn into a dungeon.
*C.A. 500-09-022943-120
