Back
Register for SMS Alerts
or enter your details manually below...
First Name:
Last Name:
Email:
Password:
Hometown:
Birthday:
Sorry, we couldn't find that email.
Existing users
Email
Password
Sorry, we couldn't find those details.
Enter Email
Sorry, we couldn't find that email.

Parties had every right to ask for division of property

Dispute arising between the parties was unfounded as the dividing lines were already clearly and precisely established in the contract

malcolm_mifsud
Malcolm Mifsud
17 February 2017, 8:00am
The Court concluded that the parties had every right to ask for the division of property
The Court concluded that the parties had every right to ask for the division of property
On the 7th February 2017, Magistrate Joanne Vella Cuschieri in the case Camilleri vs. Azzopardi et held that a co-owner possessing property adjacent to the land commonly owned with other parties, may demand such part of the latter property as is adjacent to the property already owned by him upon division of the property between them.

In this case, the parties jointly purchased an undivided plot of land in the limits of Nadur, Gozo. In a subsequent contract, many years later, this plot of land was duly divided into six portions, each party being assigned two plots of the aforementioned land. However, one small portion of this land was prohibited from being divided between the parties by the respective authorities and thus remained commonly owned between them. 

Although the dividing lines between these plots of lands were established in the aforementioned contract, a dispute arose between Camilleri and Azzopardi as to where the dividing lines were actually placed. They failed to reach an agreement as to the exact portion of land which had been assigned to the plaintiff and that assigned to the defendant. The plaintiffs thus argued that this should be determined by the Court in a clear and permanent manner. 

The Court, however, relying on the technical expert appointed by it, found that the dispute arising between the parties was unfounded as the dividing lines were already clearly and precisely established in the contract. The plea was dismissed on the ground that although the plaintiffs tried to settle this dispute in good faith, the defendants kept raising arguments without any good reason whatsoever. 

Furthermore, Camilleri et no longer wanted to remain in a state of common-ownership with the defendants, pleading to the Court to duly divide the remaining portion equally amongst all owners. The defendants argued that this was as yet undivided due to the fact that the government sought its ownership for development as a green area or in order to build a street in the public interest. 

The Court concluded that the parties had every right to ask for the division of property. Moreover, given the fact that the plaintiffs were previously assigned a plot of land adjacent to the land still commonly owned between them, it was argued that in terms of Article 503 they were entitled to that portion of the undivided land commonly owned adjacent to the plot of land already owned by the plaintiff. Having apportioned this part to the plaintiffs, the Court then assigned the remaining portion to the other parties in equal portions. 

The Court finally appointed Notary Dr Maria Vella Magro so as to ensure that the division of the remaining plot of land commonly owned between the parties takes place within a month from the judgment.

Dr Malcolm Mifsud is partner at Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates

malcolm_mifsud
Malcolm Mifsud is a partner at Mifsud & Associates.
DealToday
Latest Business News
Business News 11:38
From Rome to Malta, via Panama and Dubai: the Vatican bank claims its financial advisors and their Maltese firms used its millions to make a...
Business News 20-10
Banif Bank has rebranded into BNF Bank as it rolled out its new brand identity and divulged plans to expand into asset management and invest...
Business Comment 20-10
Correcting markets, Goldman’s contingency plans & Spain toughening up on Catalonia
Law Report 20-10
A plea claiming that an action is time barred, may be cancelled if one pleads that the claim itself is overstated
Business Comment 19-10
Earnings driving markets, Snapchat presenting next Winter Olympics and good times for IBM