Co-ownership Disputes and Their Possible Solutions
Co-ownership arises when multiple persons own one thing simultaneously. Most commonly, this involves real estate, land, family houses, apartments, or cottages, but it can also concern movable property. In practice, however, disputes often arise regarding use, investments, or management of the common property. The legal framework of the Civil Code provides mechanisms to terminate co-ownership and settle it fairly, without requiring a co-owner to remain in a disputed relationship.
Basic Legal Framework for Co-ownership Settlement
According to Section 1140 of the Civil Code, "no one can be forced to remain in co-ownership". Each co-owner can therefore request separation from co-ownership if the property can be divided, or request termination of co-ownership. This right does not require explanation of reasons and primarily serves to protect co-owners from disputes that may long-term block the use of property.
When filing a court proposal, however, it must be assessed whether other co-owners would suffer harm or whether the request is made at an inappropriate time (Section 1140(2) of the Civil Code). Objective assessment of the situation is important – if terminating co-ownership does not impair the property's function or significantly disadvantage other co-owners, the right to termination is protected.
Another key principle is the prohibition against benefiting from dishonest or unlawful conduct (Section 6(2) of the Civil Code). If one co-owner blocks another's exercise of rights, their conduct can be deemed dishonest, and the court must prioritize protection of the harmed co-owner.
Options for Co-ownership Settlement
Agreement Between Co-owners
The simplest and quickest path is agreement. Co-owners can agree on who will take over the property, whether others will be paid out, or whether the property will be sold and proceeds divided. For real estate, it is essential that the agreement be written and recorded in the land registry, which legally protects all parties.
Agreement is also ideal from the perspective of emotional attachment, when one co-owner wishes to preserve family property, such as a house or cottage, for personal residence or use.
Division of Property (Section 1144 of the Civil Code)
If agreement is not possible, courts generally prefer real division of common property. For land or property complexes, division is often practically possible, but for apartments or family houses it is usually impossible because the property serves as a whole for a specific purpose (Section 1142 of the Civil Code).
If the property cannot be divided, the court assigns its ownership to one or more co-owners and others receive appropriate compensation (Section 1147 of the Civil Code). Appropriateness is determined by independent valuation to ensure fair settlement.
However, for property assignment, the solvency of the co-owner who is interested in the co-ownership object and wants to pay out others must also be proven. This was adjudicated in the Constitutional Court finding case no. II.ÚS 494/03, which criticized the scope of evidence conducted on the co-owner's solvency as contrary to the right to fair trial: "If the general courts' conclusion about the plaintiff's solvency has no support in the evidence presented, since the results of the evidence do not provide a basis for the courts' unambiguous conclusion that the plaintiff would be able to provide compensation to other co-owners upon assignment of the property (...), the result of proceedings before general courts does not meet the criteria of fair process."
Sale and Division of Proceeds
As a last resort, if the property cannot be divided or assigned, the court may decide on sale of the real estate and division of proceeds among co-owners. This procedure is less preferred because co-owners often want to preserve the emotional value of the property.
Other Methods of Co-ownership Settlement
The law in Section 1141(2) of the Civil Code lists methods of co-ownership settlement only by way of example, not exhaustively. The Constitutional Court repeatedly pointed to the demonstrative nature of this provision in resolution case no. IV. ÚS 536/05, emphasizing that "liquidation" of a co-ownership relationship need not necessarily occur by complete termination of co-ownership. The Constitutional Court allowed the possibility that one co-owner's relationship does not terminate but transfers to a relationship with a different person than the one against whom the lawsuit for termination and settlement of co-ownership was originally filed.
This means that termination and settlement of co-ownership need not result in absolute extinction of all co-ownership rights. Co-ownership may terminate only between existing co-owners, while newly arising between other entities – and one of these entities may even be the co-owner who sought termination and settlement in proceedings.
Criteria for Assignment of Real Estate to One Co-owner
Deciding on property assignment to one co-owner represents a complex process in court practice requiring consideration of numerous criteria. Supreme Court case law has gradually developed how to understand, evaluate, and determine when some criteria may prevail.
Relations Between Co-owners
The first step for any court is to assess whether common real estate can be divided into separate parts, such as residential units. The Supreme Court has long explained that not only the technical aspect of the house decides, but also whether co-owners can function alongside each other long-term. As stated in decision case no. 22 Cdo 1978/2024: "When assessing whether division of property is well possible, one cannot proceed only from the technical perspective of the building or legal perspective, but must also consider other circumstances regarding possible further coexistence of parties in one house. The court will proceed to division into residential units only if relations between parties in using the house have been non-conflictual for a longer period and their disagreements do not require court decision under Section 139 of the Civil Code." If relations are seriously conflictual, division is not possible. In decision case no. 22 Cdo 1229/2025, the Supreme Court repeated this conclusion and found the property indivisible precisely due to conflicts between co-owners.
It is important to realize that the court does not examine who bears "greater fault" for conflicts. In decision case no. 22 Cdo 2561/2023, the Supreme Court stated: "It is not essential which party contributed more to disrupting mutual relations, but rather for the decision ... it is fundamental that relations are objectively disrupted, whereby it is not possible to remain either in proportional co-ownership or divide the property into residential units." It added that these disagreements only matter for the possibility of dividing property, not for whom it should be assigned.
Ability to Pay Out Other Co-owners
The Supreme Court in decision case no. 22 Cdo 103/2019 emphasized that "the Civil Code ... contains a single criterion for assigning property whose division is not well possible to one or more co-owners; property can only be assigned to one who wants it." However, case law also acknowledges that "wanting" the property is not sufficient to declare formally. The Regional Court in Ostrava by judgment case no. 11 Co 698/2014 interpreted "does not want" to mean that "even if a party has interest and lacks financial means to pay the settlement share, it is deemed that they do not want the property."
The Supreme Court considers financial ability to pay out other co-owners one of the most important criteria. In decision case no. 22 Cdo 1942/2016, it clearly stated that exceptionally property can be assigned even to someone who does not currently possess funds, but only "provided that evidence clearly shows that the given co-owner will obtain necessary financial means within a reasonable time." If such proof is absent, "the solvency condition is not met ... One cannot transfer to the other co-owner ... the risk of having to enforce compensation through execution." Also in decision case no. 22 Cdo 1229/2025, the Supreme Court criticized the appellate court for merely "assuming" the plaintiff's solvency when without evidence it proceeded from the assumption that funds in accounts within community property are automatically freely available when paying out other co-owners. According to the Supreme Court, the court must always reliably verify solvency.
In some disputes, whether one co-owner offers a higher settlement share than corresponds to expert valuation is decisive. In decision case no. 22 Cdo 1229/2025, the Supreme Court criticized the appellate court precisely for not considering the defendants' proposal to pay appropriate compensation to the plaintiff in an amount CZK 100,000 higher than would be due according to determined property value, and explicitly stated that such an offer is a relevant criterion that cannot be ignored.
Size of Co-ownership Share
Share size alone does not decide property assignment to one co-owner, but carries significant weight as a criterion. The Supreme Court in decision case no. 22 Cdo 754/2023 explained that "although the aspect of share sizes is not decisive in itself, if one co-owner owns a significantly higher share in common property, there must be serious reasons for possible assignment of property to a minority co-owner." The Supreme Court justifies this with reference to the need to "respect the common will of co-owners whose share constitutes a majority."
The mentioned decision also adjudicates that "if multiple co-owners act in agreement, who together own significantly more than a co-ownership share than their counterparty, and propose assignment of property to one of them, then there must be serious reasons for assigning property to another co-owner." Decision case no. 22 Cdo 1229/2025 explicitly recalled that "shares of parties acting in mutual agreement must be added together." If these co-owners jointly propose assignment of property to one of them, truly strong reasons must exist for the court to decide otherwise.
Purposeful Use of Property
The court may also consider how individual co-owners want to use the property in the future – whether they want to live in it, rent it, or have other plans. However, these circumstances are never decisive on their own. The Supreme Court in decision case no. 22 Cdo 103/2019 explained that regarding purposeful property use "it is an indefinite term; e.g., that one party wants to use it personally and the other to rent it out does not in itself preclude purposeful use in the circumstances of a specific matter ... Moreover, even purchase of a share for investment purposes cannot be evaluated as morally objectionable. Assessment of purposefulness of property use will thus always be individual."
Whether one co-owner lacks secured alternative housing can also play a role, as confirmed by the Supreme Court in decision case no. 22 Cdo 1978/2024: "For the decision ... the question of securing housing for those co-owners who lose or may lose legal grounds for housing in the settled residential house is always significant, however it must be assessed in context of all other relevant circumstances." It also added: "If the court concludes that another property owned by the plaintiff is suitable for housing and the plaintiff is entitled to use it as such, it will assess this fact as one criterion favoring assignment of settled properties into exclusive ownership of the defendant."
Emotional Attachment and Its Significance
Emotional attachment is particularly significant for family properties that have emotional value. The court may consider this attachment when deciding on property assignment. Nevertheless, the decision must be practically implementable – for example, if a majority co-owner manages the property and can pay out compensation to a minority co-owner, the court generally orders transfer of ownership.
The Supreme Court in decision case no. 22 Cdo 103/2019 recalled that "historical family connection is significant ... only when co-owners' shares are equal, both co-owners have means to pay appropriate compensation, and 'other criteria' for purposeful use of common property are equivalent." It also mentioned that "it is not excluded that the court may also consider other facts that emerge in proceedings. One may take into account circumstances under which common property was acquired, who contributed decisively to it, securing further housing for parties ... as well as other facts emerging in proceedings. Party behavior in neighbor relations can be considered as one criterion for property assignment." Case law thus allows evaluation of a whole range of circumstances without some always taking precedence.
Question of Reimbursement of Proceedings Costs
Regarding costs, the principle stated by the Constitutional Court in finding case no. IV. ÚS 404/22 applies, which establishes that "one cannot proceed from the principle of so-called procedural success in the matter, but rather from the fact that no party emerges from proceedings with less value than they entered with. Therefore, one must generally proceed according to Section 142(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, according to which each party bears their own costs." Given that co-ownership settlement is an adjustment of ownership relations and not a dispute where one party wins and another loses, each party bears their costs and has no right to reimbursement.
However, an exception is chicanerous exercise of rights, obstructive behavior hindering timely court decision issuance, or abuse of procedural rights. In that case, the given party has an obligation to reimburse proceedings costs to the other harmed co-owner.
Conclusion
Co-ownership settlement is a combination of legal, practical, and emotional aspects. The Civil Code (Sections 1140–1157) provides mechanisms for resolving dysfunctional co-ownership – from agreement, through real division, to property assignment with co-owner payment. It simultaneously protects minority co-owners from dishonest conduct and enables fair settlement even in cases where strong emotional attachment to the co-ownership object exists. Supreme and Constitutional Court case law elaborately defines criteria that courts must consider when deciding on property assignment to exclusive ownership - these include especially solvency, purposeful property use, share size, and individual case circumstances. However, there is also room for court discretion, because as Supreme Court case law case no. 22 Cdo 103/2019 mentions: "assessment of what significance these criteria have in a specific matter is (with the exception of share size and ability to pay it out) fundamentally individual and this significance cannot be generally determined."
Practical Advice for Co-owners
- Always attempt out-of-court agreement; it minimizes conflicts and costs.
- Secure independent valuation of shares if co-owners are to be paid out.
- Document long-term disagreements and co-ownership dysfunction – important for court proposal.
- Consider emotional attachment to property, especially of family character.
- If agreement fails, filing a court proposal for termination and settlement of co-ownership (Section 1143 of the Civil Code) is standard procedure.
For more information, please do not hesitate to contact us at:
ECOVIS ježek, advokátní kancelář s.r.o.
Betlémské nám. 6
110 00 Praha 1
e-mail: mojmir.jezek@ecovislegal.cz
www.ecovislegal.cz
ECOVIS ježek, advokátní kancelář s.r.o.
The Czech law firm ECOVIS ježek focuses its practice primarily on commercial law, real estate law, litigation, but also finance and banking law and provides full-service advice in all areas. This creates an alternative for clients of international law firms. The international dimension of the services provided is ensured through experience and cooperation with leading law firms in most European countries, the USA, and other jurisdictions. This cooperation occurs within the network ECOVIS, which operates in 75 countries worldwide. ECOVIS ježek team members have many years of experience from leading international law and tax firms. They provide legal advice to multinational corporations, large Czech companies, medium-sized companies, and individual clients. For more information please visit www.ecovislegal.cz.
