Legal presumption that can be rebutted or challenged by evidence to the contrary (e.g. the presumption of liability of the custodian of a property or the presumption that a undived co-owner absent at a meeting of co-owners consents to the other co-owners representing him, if he has not, in writing, mandated a third person for that purpose or has indicated his refusal to be represented.). Its antonym is irrebuttable presumption.
Deux (2) jugements[1] récents rendus par l’Honorable juge Georges Massol, de la Cour du Québec, abordent l’article 1074.2 du Code civil du Québec et le sens qu’il faudrait donner à cette disposition introduite au Code civil du Québec en décembre 2018 et qui a été modifié en mars 2020.
L’audition de ces causes a eu lieu le 13 octobre 2021 et les deux jugements portent la date du 21 octobre 2021. Signalons que le sinistre à l’origine de ces réclamations est survenu en mars 2019. Il s’agit de deux poursuites entreprises pas des copropriétaires d’un même syndicat, afin de se faire rembourser des sommes qu’ils ont dû assumer personnellement, puisque les sommes réclamées étaient inférieures au montant de la franchise du contrat d’assurance du syndicat.
View more
The characteristic of divided co-ownership is to divide the building into various lots that will be the exclusive property of the co-owners (private portions), and for others that will be the property of all the co-owners (common portions). These lots are identified by an individual number, which was assigned during the cadastral operation. Each of the private lots of the co-ownership thus constituted becomes a unique property. The distinction between the common and private portions is essential, particularly from the point of view of maintenance, which is the responsibility of the syndicate of co-owners for the common portions and of the co-owners for the private portions.
View more
