Abstract

Quoad usum agreements are frequently used in practice, but such a division of property involves many issues that require clarification. The right of co-owners to conclude an agreement specifying the manner in which the property will be used and thus allocating separate parts to be exclusively used by individual co-owners under a quoad usum division is not questioned as it results in the emergence of a different than statutory model of co-ownership and co-use. On the other hand, courts are not unanimous as regards legal classification of such deed and also whether conclusion of such an agreement is an act of ordinary management or otherwise. Undoubtedly, conclusion of an quoad usum agreement is an act the result of which is the emergence of a specific legal relationship. Doubts are also aroused, especially in judicature, whether the division of a thing for use is an act of ordinary management or otherwise. Nevertheless, the other than statutory regulation of the use of a co-owned thing should not be associated with its management and should not be classified as an act of management per se. There is no doubt that each of the co-owners is authorised to co-hold the entire co-owned thing, though there is no uniform basis for protective claims in relations between co-owners. On the other hand, it seems correct to assume that a co-owner may file a petition requesting their admission to co-holding, and moreover in certain situation the provision concerning unjust enrichment may be applied. However, it should be always borne in mind that each type of infringement should be specified when asserting claims. It is obvious that a quoad usum agreement may be terminated. If the agreement was concluded for a specified period, the quoad usum division shall be terminated upon the deadline. Insofar as the termination of an agreement by consent of co-owners arouses no doubts, the notice of termination filed by a co-owner is not obvious and should not be allowed, which in turn depends on correct classification of the act.