Position:home>Property Information> Experts advise: conflict of rights owners of the property company management
Experts advise: conflict of rights owners of the property company management
From;  Author:
With the continuous development of market economy, people in economic activities are also increasing disputes. Court to resolve social disputes, resolve social contradictions place; the judge's ruling on the case of people's behavior and lifestyle guide has an important role. About the case Plaintiff, a district of Shanghai Chen Building 15, Room 602, the owners, the defendant Shanghai Y Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Y property) is the developer community, the defendant Shanghai L Property Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as L Properties) in 2007, 7 residential property management charge since October. Check the plaintiff after the district found it in the Building, Building 15, and 24 between the basketball court, its view that the sound of Bounce will have serious impact on rest, was made to reflect the L property and other relevant units, L the property on the basketball court marked the opening time of eight to eight nights, and timely to send staff outside a limited time to discourage the activities of personnel management. Subsequently, the plaintiffs also requested the removal of the stadium, but always failed, the plaintiff then taken to court, it is felt even in the designated opening time, the plaintiff and other owners also need to rest, life, basketball courts, the noise has damaged the plaintiff and other owners of physical and mental health, so the request: 1, decree removing the two defendants set up in Building 15 of the district, between Building 24 basketball; 2, decree two defendants 1 yuan in emotional damages; 3, an order of two this case the defendant bear the costs of litigation. Proceedings, the defendant property Y, L properties are argued, the plaintiff's tort not implemented, the request dismissed the plaintiff's claim. The Court found that, provided the defendant property Y on the general layout planning, community building, Building 15, and 24, between a half-court basketball court there. The basketball court is now open half-court, not the business of leasing or other purposes. V. focus of contention Focus of the dispute case is whether the defendant removed the property L cell obligation to the public basketball court? L property as residential property company itself is not the builders of the public basketball court, nor is the owner, and its operations for the basketball court bears any kinds of obligations, whether the defendant should be the case and take responsibility, the Department of the case to determine the key issues to be. Court Chen first instance court dismissed the plaintiff's entire claim. After the plaintiffs filed an appeal against sentence. Second instance court dismissed the plaintiffs appeal and upheld the original verdict. Judgement Analysis First, the property owners the right company for the management of the conflict has certain obligations. The exercise of the right owners should be within the limits necessary, otherwise it will be with other owners the right to conflict, and place the rights of other owners on prejudice. For owners of co-ownership for a total part of the exercise of the rights which conflict with other owners, because property companies property management responsibility for a total of some obligations, and if the property company to a certain measure, the behavior coordination of the conflict, removal of obstacles, the property company have managerial duties that this Resolution. The present case, because the plaintiff in which the Building, 15th floor, with 24 set between the basketball courts meet the planning requirements, ownership of the human community of all the owners, the actual use of residential property owners and other persons on unspecified objects, basketball courts and basketball's existence do not have illegal, so the district's other owners have the right to its use. However, due to the location of the basketball court rather special understanding from the general ongoing sound basketball beat for the plaintiff may have some impact on the rest, the other owners to use the basketball court is not a specific exercise, entertainment, and in some cases the rights of the plaintiff will The right to rest a conflict, but the conflict can operate by setting the time or the basketball court with a means of soundproofing to be coordinated, the corresponding prejudice, who could then ruled out, so the defendant property owners L have managerial duties with the basketball court. Secondly, the property management company can eliminate the obligation to limit conflict of rights owners. Obligations of the property management company is not without marginal, its not only the right to make the necessary cross-border constraints, but also protect the constraints Buzhi Yu overkill, so the property management rights obligations should be excluded from the conflict that are harmful to the extent that obligations in the discharge of management as long as certain constraints can be set to eliminate prejudice, the property of the company shall not further increase binding. Whether the general rule out physical obstruction can often be observed by ordinary people to judge, but because of conflict of rights in this case, Department of the noise that are harmful to prejudice, such prejudice is invisible prejudice, and its often difficult to directly determine whether the exclusion, often requires the use of professional identification were identified. If due to objective reasons can not be identified, then the actual conditions should determine the adequacy of existing measures to eliminate prejudice, and to determine whether the company has increased measures of property management obligations. This case, the defendant asked the plaintiff L under the property has been marked by basketball courts open as early as eight to eight nights, and timely to send staff outside a limited time to discourage the activities of personnel management, however, still believe that the plaintiff jeopardized the right to rest, asked for the basketball court, basketball goal to be completely removed. Trial, the plaintiff petitioned for court staff activities of the noise generated by the process of identification, but the lack of national standards for identification and implementation of identified conditions, environmental monitoring departments were not accepted. In summary, from the common sense to judge, a basketball court in the open as early as eight o'clock to eight o'clock night, as a normal person, get to meet the plaintiff's rest. Therefore, the existence of the plaintiff suffer noise pollution and its grounds, to assert their right to rest and other legitimate rights and interests are violated, requiring removal of material caused by infringement, it should bear the burden of proof on this responsibility. Is the plaintiff in the lawsuit did not provide evidence of its alleged right to rest the fact that damage to its property infringement claims defendant L, based on insufficient. Moreover, the plaintiff asked if Yigai support removed the basketball court, basketball's claim, will affect other owners to use public health facilities in the right area. It should be possible to identify L has the necessary property management obligations, and have ruled out the corresponding noise prejudice, but there is no infringement of the rights of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim should not be supported.