Who gets the cottage? Court resolved 20 years of sibling disputes over family property

The District Court in Písek recently ruled on a case that perfectly illustrates how toxic property disputes between siblings can be. Two heirs – a brother and a sister – had been fighting over a recreational cottage in South Bohemia for more than two decades. The case reveals important principles that courts apply when settling co-ownership, and above all, shows that long-term de facto use of someone else's property is not automatically an advantage.

Twenty Years of Conflict and an Invalid Gift Agreement

The story began in the 1970s when the parents of the parties acquired a recreational cottage. The family used it together – the parents, the daughter (plaintiff), and the son (defendant). However, the situation changed dramatically in 2003 when the defendant started a new relationship. From that moment, he began to effectively occupy the cottage and gradually pushed other family members out.

A key moment occurred in 2018. The mother of the parties, who at that time was already suffering from moderate Alzheimer's type dementia, entered into a gift agreement with her son, intending to transfer the property to him. However, the sister challenged this and succeeded in court – the gift agreement was declared invalid, because the mother was not legally competent at the time of its signing. An expert opinion proved that she was "significantly susceptible to influence by another person" and could not enter into any contracts.

After their mother's death, both siblings inherited the cottage as co-owners, each holding one half. Unable to communicate, the sister petitioned the court for the termination of co-ownership.

Decisive Criteria: Why Did the Court Award the Cottage to the Sister?

Both siblings wanted the cottage for themselves. The brother argued that he had maintained it for 20 years, invested in it, and paid for insurance and electricity. The sister countered that her brother had systematically excluded her from its use – and proved that she had sufficient financial resources not only to buy out her brother but also for future investments in the property.

The court considered several factors in its decision. Firstly, an expert appraisal set the market value of the property at 1,950,000 CZK. Secondly, both siblings demonstrated solvency – the sister had over 3.4 million Czech crowns, while the brother had just under 1.5 million. Thirdly, the sister offered her brother for his share 1,250,000 CZK, which was significantly more than half of the expert appraisal.

Crucial, however, was the assessment of both parties' conduct. The court stated that the brother "had used the property almost exclusively since 2011" and even during their mother's lifetime, he gradually excluded other family members from using it. When his sister tried to arrange shared use, the brother either didn't respond or made unreasonable demands – for example, he demanded rent for using his cutlery or refrigerator.

The court therefore concluded that the brother's long-term use of the property and his maintenance or investments could not be taken into account, because at the same time, he exclusively used the property and reaped its benefits, without allowing his sister, as co-owner, to use them. By doing so, he denied her the right to shared use of the property.

The outcome? The cottage was awarded to the sister, with the obligation to pay her brother 1,250,000 CZK. Regarding the costs of the proceedings, the court ruled that neither party was entitled to compensation – in accordance with the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court, which states that in iudicium duplex type proceedings (where there is a common interest of both parties in resolving a stalemate), costs are generally not awarded.

This case offers an important lesson for anyone who finds themselves in a similar situation. Actual use of co-owned property is not the same as ownership. If a co-owner consistently prevents another from using shared property, the court will take this into account to their disadvantage during settlement. And finally – if you want to acquire the property, be prepared to offer a fair (or even better) price and demonstrate that you have the means to maintain it in the future.

Source: District Court in Písek, 10 C 336/2023-359