Abstract

The article attempts to assess the view formulated by the Supreme Court in its resolution of 20 October 2022 (III CZP 111/22). According to this view, fractional co-owners of premises bear separate (independent of each other) liability to a housing association for the expenses and maintenance costs that are not covered by the benefits and other income, according to the size of their shares in the common property, calculated in the manner described in Art. 3.3a of the Act of 24 June 1994 on Ownership of Premises. Basing on the provisions of Art. 1a, Art. 3.3a and Art. 12.2 of the Act on Ownership of Premises, it has been stated that the invoked position of the Supreme Court deserves approval. The article also includes comments on the solution used in Art. 1a of the Act on Ownership of Premises, in which the legislator excludes a fractional co-owner of premises from the application of Art. 16 of the Act on Ownership of Premises, which regulates a forced sale of premises on request of the housing association.