After the death of their parents, the family home often becomes jointly owned property of several children. Sometimes one of them continues to live there, while the others want to receive payment for their shares and, for that purpose, sell the property. It may also happen that other heirs move into the house and it becomes necessary to establish rules for living there together. On such occasions, the question of who should bear the costs of maintaining the house often arises.
Differing expectations on these matters can lead to a long-lasting dispute that completely destroys family relationships. As the dispute escalates, one of the heirs may sometimes try to force concessions, for example by cutting off a resident’s access to water, electricity or heating. Such actions go beyond a normal property dispute and may provide grounds for both civil and criminal liability of the perpetrator. Before discussing means of defence, it is worth explaining the legal position of siblings after their parents’ death. This determines how their mutual relations should be arranged and how the dispute can ultimately be resolved.
An inheritance is inherited, but not yet divided
Heirs acquire the inheritance upon the death of the deceased—by operation of law. The procedure intended to formally confirm this right is divided into two stages:
The first stage is the issuance by a court of an order confirming the acquisition of the inheritance, or obtaining a certificate of inheritance before a notary. However, these documents answer only the question of who inherits and in what share—for example, that three children each receive one-third of the inheritance. They do not determine who will receive the house.
That is decided only in the second stage: the division of the estate among the heirs. The estate may be divided either by drawing up an appropriate agreement or in court proceedings. Until this is done, the provisions on co-ownership in fractional shares apply to the estate. This means that, regardless of the size of their share in the inheritance, no heir has the exclusive right to use “their” room or floor. Heirs may not arbitrarily restrict a given resident’s access to particular rooms.
A shared home, shared rules
Each co-owner may possess the entire house jointly and use it to the extent compatible with the rights of the others. Decisions on day-to-day matters, known as ordinary management, are made by a majority calculated according to the co-ownership shares, while more serious matters, such as a major renovation, require everyone’s consent. If an agreement cannot be reached, it becomes necessary to submit an application to the court for a decision on the management of the jointly owned property. Cutting off a resident’s water, electricity or similar utilities is not a management decision, but an unlawful deprivation of the possibility of using the jointly owned property normally. Courts classify it as a violation of possession.
Protection of possession—the fastest route
An affected resident may bring an action to restore the previous state and cease violations of their possession. The advantage of this route is its narrow scope: the court examines only the last state of possession and the fact of its violation, not who is entitled to the house or in what share. It is therefore not even necessary to have an order confirming the acquisition of the inheritance or to establish the group of property owners.
This protection is available to anyone who actually uses the house and also operates between co-possessors. The exception concerns situations in which it is impossible to determine who uses the house and to what extent. In the situation described, this is usually not a problem: if one sibling lives in the house and uses its installations, cutting off utilities clearly interferes with that person’s possession.
The deadline must nevertheless be observed: the claim expires if it is not pursued within one year of the violation. Once that year has passed, or when the dispute concerns a broader method of using the house, the injured party is left with an action to be admitted to joint possession. In that case, however, the court examines the right itself, so the proceedings usually take longer.
Interim relief—water before the judgment
Proceedings may last for months, and without water a house is unfit for habitation. Therefore, an application for interim relief should be filed together with the action. In its order, the court may require the water supply to be restored for the duration of the proceedings. The regulations provide that such an application should be examined within a week, although in practice it may take longer. The applicant must substantiate—meaning not prove fully, but make credible—the claim and the legal interest. The need to ensure water or electricity in an occupied house is an argument that almost guarantees a favourable decision.
What about the utility supply agreement?
Someone does not always physically turn off a valve or cut off the electricity. Sometimes the heir whose name appears on the agreement with the water company simply terminates it, and the supplier suspends the service. For the supplier, only the identity of the contracting party matters. Whether the heir could terminate the agreement without the siblings’ consent is a matter concerning relations between the heirs and may form the basis for claims against the person who did so.
The other heirs are not helpless, however. They may independently apply to the water company to conclude a new agreement—this time in their own name. The regulations allow anyone with legal title to the property to conclude such an agreement. When concluding a new agreement, the supplier may nevertheless check whether the applicant is acting with the consent of the majority of the other co-owners. If it establishes that such consent is absent, the heir must apply to the court for authorisation to conclude the agreement.
Electricity and gas suppliers usually proceed similarly, although different regulations apply here—the Energy Law. The seller concludes an agreement with a customer who demonstrates legal title to the property. In the case of an inherited house, an order confirming the acquisition of the inheritance or a notarial certificate of inheritance is usually sufficient. Whether one of the co-owners may conclude such an agreement alone is governed by the Civil Code, so the rules are the same as for water.
It is also worth checking whose name appears on the agreement, as it often still lists a deceased parent. The customer’s death does not mean that supplies are automatically suspended, but companies usually then require a new agreement with a person entitled to the property. Whoever signs it becomes the supplier’s sole contractual partner: bills are sent to that person, who may later terminate the agreement. Therefore, an heir who lives in the house should not delay resolving this matter—before someone else does so.
Accounts are settled when the estate is divided
A dispute over utilities often stems from the feeling that someone is using the shared home for free. Anyone who uses the property beyond their share and prevents the others from accessing it may be ordered by the court to pay compensation. The rule is that property-maintenance costs not resulting from the use of the property by a particular resident—such as tax and insurance—are borne by the co-owners in proportion to their shares. These claims, like reimbursement for expenses, such as a roof renovation, must be asserted in estate-division proceedings. Once those proceedings have ended with final legal effect, they can no longer be pursued.
A lasting solution: estate division or mediation
The measures described put out the fire, but do not remove its cause. That cause is removed only by dividing the estate and ending the co-ownership. This may be done by concluding an agreement in the form of a notarial deed or through the courts. If there is a dispute, the fee for an application to divide the estate is PLN 500. Before bringing the case to court, mediation may also be considered: it is usually faster and less damaging to family relationships.
The boundary of criminal law
If cutting off utilities is intended to force a household member to behave in a particular way, namely to move out, and significantly makes it more difficult for them to use the occupied dwelling, the offence under Article 191 § 1a of the Criminal Code may apply (obstructing the use of residential premises), punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment. Prosecution takes place upon the injured party’s request. This is, however, a measure of last resort—the criminal judgment will not replace proceedings for division of the estate.
First steps in the event of a dispute
Above all, evidence should be collected: photographs of valves and meters, dates of events, messages, emails and witness details. It is then worth issuing a written demand to the co-heir to restore the utilities. Do not use force, however—self-help is permitted only within narrow limits, immediately after the violation and never with the use of violence against people. Most importantly, do not delay—the one-year period for protection of possession runs from the day the water was turned off.
CONTACT
Daszyńskiego 12/159-700 Bolesławiec
- Mobile: 601 563 996
- Tel. (English) 601 225 208
- Fax (+48) 75 732 61 91
Office hours
Mon–Fri: 9:00–15:00
Please contact the law office by phone between 9:00 and 15:00 to arrange an individual meeting (also after 15:00