A disaster occurred in the dwelling of a co-owner in the basement because of water infiltration caused by a crack in the concrete wall. Building insurance does not cover this type of loss. The syndicate quickly had the crack repaired. In terms of damage to the interior of the dwelling, some of the damage is to improvements (flooring) and some to basic structures (plaster walls). The co-owner refuses to call on his insurer to separate the costs of the syndicate and co-owner and insists that the syndicate pay for all repairs since he does not want to increase his insurance premiums. Question: Is he entitled to do that? Especially since the dwelling was uninhabited for two years before the co-owner built up that there was a little water on its floor during heavy rains. It seems to me that there is negligence on his part, perhaps there has been infiltration for some time and that it should not be the syndicate's responsibility to pay for all these repair costs.
Login / Register to read this article
In principle, co-owners have the right to enjoy their private portion as he sees fit. In addition, the law provides for a duty of tolerance on the part of neighbours, i.e. to accept the normal inconveniences that may result from the exercise of the right of ownership by the other. However, there are limitations to this use. In the event that the nuisance caused by an occupant of the building becomes excessive, it constitutes an abnormal neighborhood disturbance. It is common for such a case to constitute a breach of clauses relating to the peaceful enjoyment of the private portions, which are provided for in the by-laws of the immovable. That said, an abnormal neighbourhood disturbance does not systematically constitute a violation of the declaration of co-ownership. It should be noted that in certain circumstances, this type of inconvenience may be punished, even if the perpetrator has not committed any fault.