Interarms Alexandria Rifle

Tables thousandth wrong: the building goes back on action with charges of unjust enrichment

The judicial sentence, as the act of assembly, is not retroactive. Negligible inertia

work approved by the Assembly, costs divided between the condominiums. But, surprise, the thousandth tables are old and no longer reliable, because in the meantime another housing unit was built. As it does, then the building to recover the money? The action for unjust enrichment against the condominium is the right way, and the possible amendment of the proportional values \u200b\u200bestablished by the court would not have retroactive effect. The ruling clarifies the No 5690 of March 10, 2011, issued by the Third Civil Division of the Supreme Court.

administrative proceedings

Needless to the condominium "pardoned" by the old tables to support the impracticability of the action referred to in Article 2041 Cc promoted by the administrator: There is indeed a case that warrants the enrichment of owner who has not paid his share at the expense of everyone else. It is true, it is possible to modify the tables by the resolution of thousandths (and before the ruling of the Joint Sections 18477/10 requires the consent of all the buildings). But you can also ask the court under Article 69 Cc avail. att. the fact is, however, that its ruling effective manner and not declarative, by Because the same as the agreement (consensus) among the apartment blocks. So? In the absence of an ad hoc provision to the contrary, the decision can not have retroactive effect but that effectiveness begins to run only from res judicata.

Diligence and relevance

Again, it is irrelevant whether the inertia of the building. The breakdown of costs based on unreliable tables is one fact which gives rise to an unlawful increase in the time sheet of the condominium deminutio pardoned and suffered from the others: it is therefore unjust enrichment, in this case does not apply the rule in Article 1227 Cc che impone al danneggiato di attivarsi per evitare le ulteriori conseguenze della lesione; nella fattispecie regolata dall'articolo 2041 Cc, insomma, il fatto che l'impoverito non sia diligente nel ridurre la portata della diminuzione patita non esime l'arricchito dall'indennizzare la controparte né può decurtare l'ammontare del dovuto.

Dario Ferrara (da telediritto.it del 12.3.2011)