Is it reasonable for high-rise buildings and villas in the same community to be managed separately by the property? The court ruled this way

Source: Upstream News-Chongqing Morning News

Recently, incidents about the artificial division of the activity scope of public rental housing and commercial housing owners have frequently been on the hot search topics. Recently, high-rise buildings and villas in a community in Banan, Chongqing have been isolated and managed by property owners. Is this reasonable? Let’s hear the verdict of the Banan District People’s Court.

Reduction of the incident:

The property management company completely separated the villas in the community from the high-rise buildings

Located in Banan, Chongqing There are 20 to 43 houses in the Qingjiang Shanshui community (the names of the parties involved in this article are pseudonyms), all in the same building zone, of which 42 and 43 are high-rise buildings, and the rest are villas. There are two wrought iron gates between the villa and the high-rise residence. The building plan shows them as fire doors. The high-rise owners could originally enter from Gate 3 of the community and then pass through the wrought iron gate to enter the upper floors.

Meixin Property Company is the property management company of Qingjiang Shanshui Community. In order to facilitate the management between the villa and the high-rise, the property company closed the two wrought iron gates, resulting in the high-rise owners being no longer able to pass through Gate 3. They cannot freely enter the villa area. The property management company has set up separate access control on the south side of the 42 high-rise buildings. High-rise owners can only enter through this side door. Since then, the villas in this community have been completely separated from the high-rise buildings.

Liu Xiaoxiao, the owner of 42 high-rise buildings, believes that the behavior of the property management company has restricted the access range of high-rise owners and hindered the use of public facilities and greening in the community. For this reason, Liu Xiaoxiao sued Go to court and ask the property company to open the two wrought iron gates.

Judgment result:

The obstructing door will be removed from the property within a time limit

Banan District People’s Court The review found that the 42 and 43 high-rise buildings in the community and other buildings The villas are all planned in the same community. During the property management of the community, Meixin Property Company closed the two wrought iron gates connecting the roads between the high-rise buildings and the villas, canceling the right of the high-rise owners to enter and exit the community through Gate 3, which harmed the high-rise owners. As the owner of the building division, he has the rights to the common parts of the community.

In particular, the functions of the two wrought iron doors are fire doors. Closing the fire doors directly affects the handling of dangers by high-rise owners or villa owners in emergencies, threatening public safety. For this reason, it was decided that Maxim PropertyThe company opened the two wrought iron doors within a limited time.

Both the plaintiff and the defendant accepted the verdict and settled the lawsuit, and the verdict has now come into effect.

Judge’s comment:

The property infringes upon the right of high-rise owners to pass freely on public roads in the community

The Banan District People\’s Court stated that in recent years, property companies have separated and managed villas in the same community from high-rise buildings, resulting in frequent news of high-rise owners collectively safeguarding their rights. This case is a typical case in which a property company artificially separates villas within the same plan. Rights protection cases after isolation from senior management.

Article 271 of the Civil Code of our country stipulates the differentiated ownership of buildings by owners. Building divided ownership is a special type of composite real estate ownership that includes exclusive rights to exclusive parts, joint rights to common parts, and management rights based on common ownership relationships. The scope of proprietary parts and common parts is generally distinguished by structural independence, utilization independence and legal independence. The common part refers to the part other than the exclusive part, specifically including the common parts and corresponding ancillary facilities, such as stairs, corridors, roads within the building zone, green spaces, public places, public facilities, etc. The owners have the right to occupy, use and profit from the jointly owned parts.

According to reports, the reason why the Civil Code stipulates that co-ownership outside the exclusive part is an ancillary right to the owner’s exclusive right is because the above-mentioned supporting facilities within the community building zoning serve the life of the residential community. It is necessary and should be included in the residential quality standards of the community. In terms of use, co-ownership can be divided into general co-ownership of common parts and exclusive use rights of common parts. The latter refers to the right to exclusively enjoy a certain common part by one or several owners according to legal provisions and owners\’ agreements. , for example, the owner is allowed to hang billboards on the exterior wall, but the owner usually has to pay a corresponding consideration to the owner who transfers his shared part of the rights and interests. The establishment of the exclusive use right of the shared part cannot harm the legitimate rights and interests of others.

In this case, senior management and others The villa business types are all planned in the same community. The ownership of the buildings in the common parts of the community by the high-rise owners shall extend to all the common parts in the entire community, including the roads, green spaces and public supporting facilities in the villa area. The high-rise owners shall enjoy Rights of possession, use and income

Meixinwu. In order to facilitate management, the property company privately closed the passage between high-rise buildings and villas without the consent of the owners committee or owners\’ meeting, so that high-rise owners could only take a detour to enter the community, which violated the right of high-rise owners to pass freely on public roads in the community. Moreover, in this case The main greening, landscape and public facilities and other advantageous resources in the medium-sized residential area They are all concentrated in the villa area. The property management company isolates the villas from the high-rise buildings, so that the high-rise owners cannot enter the villa area to enjoy the public resources of the community, which seriously infringes on the differentiated ownership of the buildings by the high-rise owners.

Although the shared parts can be shared. According to the legal provisions and the agreement with the owners, one or several owners will have exclusive rights. The right to permanently occupy and use a common part, that is, to delineate the exclusive right to use the common part. However, the agreement must be approved by the relevant owners and the relevant owners must be paid a consideration for transferring their rights. The property company has no right to act as a third party. The villa owners have the exclusive right to use the common parts.

As for the beautiful tokens. The property company argued that the villa owners had paid higher property fees and should enjoy more public resources. This was only an agreement on the price of property services between the property company and the villa owners, and this agreement could not override the co-ownership of high-rise owners. , property companies cannot use this as an excuse to block high-rise owners’ rights to pass and enjoy public facilities.

Villas have always represented low-density, high-quality life. Although many residential villas are developed in combination with high-rise buildings, generally villas occupy the best real estate development resources in the entire community. When developers sell such mixed-match communities, in order to increase the attractiveness of the property, they often place villas in the area. Focus on promoting the supporting facilities, which constitutes an offer to all owners. The developer’s promotional content should be understood from two aspects. First, the promoted content should actually exist when the house is delivered; second, all owners have Everyone has the right to enjoy the content promoted by the developer, and high-rise owners are no exception.

For communities where villas and high-rises are mixed and sold, high-rise owners pay attention to the fact that the villa planning in the community can improve the quality of the entire community when purchasing houses. The unit purchase price is often higher than that of pure high-rise commercial communities. Villa owners also take advantage of the high-rise business format to evenly share the floor area ratio cost, and the unit price of the house is lower than that of a pure villa community. If high-rise buildings are separated from villas, the living area of ​​high-rise owners will be greatly reduced, the floor area ratio will increase, and the greening rate will decrease, while the villas will become pure villa communities. This is inconsistent with the architectural planning and is also obviously contrary to the principle of fairness.

In addition, from another level, the owners of high-rise buildings and villas may have formed harmonious and friendly neighborly relationships in the long-term process of living together. The property management company closed the passage between the villas and the high-rise buildings in the community, which deepened the conflicts and gaps between the high-rise owners and the villa owners, and put the property company, high-rise owners, and villa owners in opposition, which is not conducive to building a harmonious neighborhood. relationship is not conducive to social stability and unity, so the court made a negative evaluation of his behavior.

The special feature of this case is that the property company was closed down. The fire door is the fire door. This case ordered the property management company to open the fire door. From a legal perspective, it protects the owners’ common rights. From a social perspective, it eliminates public safety hazards and makes the parties aware of the importance of fire escapes. Realize the importance of setting up fire escapes and opening fire doors in layout planning

The picture comes from the Internet

Upstream News-Chongqing Morning News reporter. Zhang Hao

[Disclaimer] The text, pictures, audio and video of the Upstream News client are not marked with \”Source: Upstream News-Chongqing Morning News\” or \”Upstream News LOGO, watermarks, etc.\” Reprinted manuscript. If the reprint involves copyright and other issues, please contact Upstream News.

Report