2014 March

he judgment of 14 March 2014 (ref. No. III CZP 121/13) Composition of 3 judges

Is legitymowanym to bring proceedings to establish the invalidity of the agreement underlying mortgage registered in the Land Register in favor of the defendant (Art. 189 of the Code in connection with Art. 58 § 2 of the Civil Code), is an entity benefiting from the same generically limited property rights described in this Paper of lower priority when and confirmed the basis of the actual action incompatible with the actual legal status of entries determining the formation of both the rights of creditors, can be removed in the area of ​​competence of the entity by the result of the following under the law?

Supreme Court resolution of 14 March 2014.

The possibility to bring an action for a declaration of incompatibility between the legal status of the property disclosed in the land register and the actual legal status (Art. 10 paragraph. 1 of the Law on Land and Mortgage) in relation to the priority of mortgages does not exclude the legal interest of the creditor, who is entitled to a mortgage registered on the lower site investigation to determine the invalidity of a legal act entered a mortgage with a higher priority to a third party (art. 189 CCP). Court decision issued in such proceedings, may give rise to an entry cancel the mortgage.

The judgment of 27 March 2014 (ref. No. III CZP 122/13) Composition of 3 judges

Is exercised by the cooperative property management joint ownership forming cooperatives under art. 27 in. 2 of the Act of 15 December 2000. Housing Cooperatives (Journal of Laws of 2003., No. 119, item. 1116, as amended.) Entitles the cooperative to make their own decisions regarding these properties also in the range of activities which go beyond the ordinary course of business or is required by the cooperative obtaining the consent of each of the co-owners in accordance with Art. 199 of the Civil Code?

Supreme Court resolution of 27 March 2014.

Housing association can independently perform acts which exceed the scope of ordinary management of common property (Art. 27, paragraph. 2 of the Act of 15 December 2000. Housing Cooperatives, one. Text: Journal of Laws of 2013., Pos. 1222).

The judgment of 27 March 2014 (ref. No. III CZP 133/13) Composition of 3 judges

Whether in the case of reimbursement request for exemption from court costs, made by a party represented by legal counsel, following a call for payment of objection to the default judgment and failure to pay this fee, the opposition is rejected?

Supreme Court resolution of 27 March 2014.

In the case of a refund on the basis of Art. Paragraph 102. 4 of the Act of 28 July 2005. On court costs in civil matters (the unit. Text Journal of Laws of 2010. No. 90, item. 594, as amended.) Application for exemption from court costs, made after the request for payment the objection to the default judgment, the chairman calls again to pay objection under Art. 130 § 1 k.p.c.

The judgment of 28 March 2014 (ref. No. III CZP 8/14) Composition of 3 judges

Is the term prescription of real estate property the applicant may not include the period during which he ran for his term to be acquired by adverse possession against the right of perpetual usufruct previous perpetual user, which is perpetual usufruct, before the deadline for the prescription has expired due to the expiry of the period for which entered into an agreement of perpetual usufruct?

Supreme Court resolution of 28 March 2014.

For the period of prescription of property rights do not include the period of its ownership of content right of perpetual usufruct.

Kancelaria Prawna 90-060 Łódź, ul. Nawrot 4/1, tel./fax +48 /42/ 630 58 41, tel. +48 /42/ 632 51 44, kancelaria@b2blegal.pl
Korzystanie z tej witryny oznacza wyrażenie zgody na wykorzystanie plików cookies. Więcej informacji możesz znaleźć w naszej Polityce Prywatności.