The owner tampered with the entrance door and affected the neighbor\’s access

Source: People\’s Daily Online

This newspaper reported (Reporter Zhou Ruiping, Correspondent Yu Shengyun) The owner widened and raised the entrance door without authorization, and changed it from an inside opening to an outside opening, affecting the passage of the neighbor\’s family. Recently, the Intermediate People\’s Court of Hefei City, Anhui Province issued a second-instance judgment on this neighboring rights dispute case, upholding the first-instance judgment of the Baohe District People\’s Court of Hefei City and ordering the defendant Li to restore the entrance door to its original state.

Liu and Li purchased houses on the 6th floor of Building 5 in a community in Hefei City in 2010 and lived next to each other. In September 2023, Li failed to report to the community property company, and without Liu\’s consent, he widened and increased the height of his entrance door, and at the same time changed the entrance door from inward opening to outward opening.

Because the two houses are adjacent to each other, when Li’s renovated entrance door was fully opened, the exit of Liu’s house was blocked. Liu\’s family members communicated and tried to dissuade Li\’s family members to no avail. Later, Liu reported the situation to the property management company and the community committee. He admitted that there were young children and elderly people at home, and the safety and fire hazards were greater after the door was blocked. At the end of September of the same year, the property management company sent a rectification letter to Li, requiring him to rectify the entrance door as soon as possible, but Li ignored it. Afterwards, the neighborhood committee and the property management company organized and coordinated many times to no avail. Liu then brought a lawsuit to the court, requesting that the defendant Li be ordered to immediately stop the infringement of unauthorized modification of the door that caused damage to himself, restore the size of the entrance door to the size before the modification, and change it back to the inside opening, and at the same time bear the consequences of the adjustment caused by his rights protection. filing fees and litigation fees.

After the trial, the court held that Article 288 of the Civil Code stipulates that neighboring rights holders of real estate should correctly handle neighboring relationships in accordance with the principles of conducive to production, convenient life, solidarity and mutual assistance, and fairness and reasonableness. . Article 272 stipulates that owners have the right to possess, use, benefit from and dispose of the exclusive parts of their buildings. The owner shall not endanger the safety of the building or damage the legitimate rights and interests of other owners when exercising their rights. Article 5.8.5 of the Ministry of Construction\’s \”Residential Design Code\” (GB50096-2011) stipulates that outward-opening doors should not hinder public transportation and the opening of adjacent doors. In this case, when Li\’s renovated entrance door was fully open, it almost completely blocked the entry door of Liu\’s family, which affected the normal access of Liu\’s family and also caused certain safety hazards.

To sum up, the court held that Li’s behavior of changing the direction and size of the entrance door without authorization was inappropriate and should be restored to its original state. The plaintiff, despite the failure of multi-party coordination, incurred reasonable expenditures in obtaining the defendant\’s identity information for the purpose of litigation, and has provided evidence, which should be supported.

Therefore, the court of first instance ruled that the defendant Li would restore the entrance door to its original state, pay the plaintiff Liu the adjustment fee, and bear the litigation costs. Li was dissatisfied and appealed. After hearing the case, the Hefei Intermediate People\’s Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

The judge reminded

Being kind and kind to neighbors is a traditional virtue of the Chinese nation, and one must abide by public ethics when dealing with neighbors. Everyone has the right to pursue a comfortable life, but the exercise of rights also has boundaries. The boundaries of rights should not be exceeded at will, and the legitimate rights and interests of other people should not be harmed. between neighborsIn daily life, we should carry forward the traditional virtues of the Chinese nation, set a good example for our children, and create a good and harmonious family tradition.

Source: People’s Court Newspaper

本站内容及图片来自网络,版权归原作者所有,内容仅供读者参考,不承担相关法律责任,如有侵犯请联系我们:609448834

(0)
华夏门网的头像华夏门网
上一篇 2024年12月15日 10:45:01
下一篇 2024年12月15日 10:48:38

相关推荐

  • 入戶區,沒有玄關怎麼辦?9種方式,選一個懶人照著裝就行

    與入戶門\”相連\”的\”周圍\”區域作為傢中\”門面擔當\”,總是被\”精心對待\”,隻希望它能夠兼顧實用和美貌,可滿足入戶時的功能需求,也可擁有驚鴻一瞥的\”美麗\”,這其中玄關則是入戶區較常存在的狀態,當入戶門區域沒有玄關時我認為可以…

    入户门 2024年12月1日
    630
  • 壹点帮办|青岛一业主将入户门由内开改外开,邻居家被堵得难通行

    视频加载中… (记者 高雅洁)近日,家住青岛市城阳区棘洪滩街道沈家庄社区的壹粉吴女士向齐鲁晚报官方客户端齐鲁壹点情报站反映,自己家邻居将交房时向内打开的入户门私自改成了向外开,开门时挡住自己家往外通行的路。因为此事,她与邻居协商了几个月,并向物业、社区居委会、街道以及相关部门反映多次,但一直都没能解决。事情到底是怎么回事?壹点帮办记者进行了调查采…

    入户门 2023年12月8日
    810
  • 消防规范上对于住宅入户门的相关要求

    1 防火通规和建规中的住宅户门宽度 《建筑防火通用规范》GB 55037-2022第7.1.4条规定,疏散出口门、室外疏散楼梯的净宽度均不应小于0.80m;住宅建筑中直通室外地面的住宅户门的净宽度不应小于0.80m。 条文中的“直通室外地面的住宅户门”感觉表达不是很清晰,可能会被理解为住宅底层直通室外地面的户门,而实际要表达的当是所有楼层的户门。 《建筑设计…

    入户门 2024年4月12日
    3890
  • 开发商送的“入户门”能用吗?听内行人一说,才知自己做错了

    现在很多小区的新房,即便是毛坯房,一般都是自带入户门的,但是在装修的时候,有的人就担心了,开发商给装的门质量怎么样呢?有没有必要把开发商装的门给换掉呢?有很多人对此比较纠结,那么,我们今天就来详细的讨论讨论这个话题吧。 ▼ 对于有买房的打算,而且也看过房的朋友来说,有一个常识是大家都知道的,那就是在买房的时候,开发商是会附送我们一扇入户门的。很多朋友就会比较…

    入户门 2023年10月19日
    1010
  • 入户门左右2侧没隔墙又怎么样!砌堵墙嵌入柜子,同样能保护隐私

    乍一听入户门没有墙,肯定有人想要反驳我了,怎么可能没有墙呢?其实这个意思就是说没有专门的玄关过道墙,来对比下就能了解了↓。 那么有没有这个墙有什么区别呢?我们都知道玄关是能够满足进出的收纳需求,方便临时放些衣服、钥匙等,也让我们更加方便的换鞋或者整理仪容仪表,这是一个完整的玄关具备的功能。 但是并不是说所有的房子都能够满足这些,有些家庭可能会根据玄关的大小择…

    入户门 2024年2月4日
    3920

联系我们

400-800-8888

在线咨询: QQ交谈

邮件:[email protected]

工作时间:周一至周五,9:30-18:30,节假日休息

关注微信