Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
11 10 153 • KG LU 11 10 153 Generato dall'IA

Landowner Easement Dispute Over Discrepancy Between Registered Plan and Actual Boundary Use

Numero d'incarto 11 10 153
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Svizzera · Canton Lucerna (CH-LU)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Accolto (Allowed)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The parties, neighboring landowners, disputed the scope of a registered right-of-way easement noted in the land register as "Right-of-way according to plan," where the plan's depiction of the boundary did not align with the current, later established property line to the detriment of the benefiting property. The court reasoned that while the land register entry is generally paramount (Art. 738 Abs. 1 ZGB), the notation "according to plan" made the plan an integral, albeit potentially imprecise, part of the registration, necessitating recourse to the underlying purpose (Art. 738 Abs. 2 ZGB) due to the obvious discrepancy between the plan's provisional boundary and the actual current boundary which rendered the limited interpretation nonsensical for access. Furthermore, visible driving tracks on the burdened property indicated the actual use extended to the current border, precluding the subsequent owners of the burdened property from claiming protection under good faith concerning the discrepancy (Art. 973 Abs. 1 ZGB).

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Art. 738 Abs. 1 ZGB, Art. 738 Abs. 2 ZGB, Art. 2 ZGB, Art. 973 Abs. 1 ZGB, Art. 3 Abs. 2 ZGB; Landowner Easement Dispute Over Discrepancy Between Registered Plan and Actual Boundary Use: The court reasoned that while the land register entry is generally paramount (Art. 738 Abs. 1 ZGB), the notation "according to plan" made the plan an integral, albeit potentially imprecise, part of the registration, necessitating recourse to the underlying purpose (Art. 738 Abs. 2 ZGB) due to the obvious discrepancy between the plan's provisional boundary and the actual current boundary which rendered the limited interpretation nonsensical for access. Furthermore, visible driving tracks on the burdened property indicated the actual use extended to the current border, precluding the subsequent owners of the burdened property from claiming protection under good faith concerning the discrepancy (Art. 973 Abs. 1 ZGB).

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
servitù credito contestato diritto di proprietà notificazione della pretesa registro fondiario estensione della protezione

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
Generato dall'IA

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
Art. 738 Abs. 2 ZGB

Applied by the court to interpret the scope of the right of way by looking at the purpose of the servitude because the entry was unclear.

Art. 738 Abs. 1 ZGB

Cited in the reasoning section regarding the primary importance of the register entry, which the court found unclear, necessitating interpretation under Art. 738 para. 2 ZGB.

Art. 3 Abs. 2 ZGB

Applied to counter the defendants' claim of good faith because they should have recognized the actual path of use.

Art. 973 Abs. 1 ZGB

Cited in the context of discussing the limits of good faith protection regarding the physical appearance of the property.

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

Rechtsprechung Luzern

Instanz: · Obergericht

Abteilung: · 1. Abteilung

Rechtsgebiet: · Zivilrecht

Entscheiddatum: · 19.08.2011

Fallnummer: · 11 10 153

LGVE: · 2011 I Nr. 3

Leitsatz: · Art. 3 Abs. 2, 738 Abs. 1 und 2 und 971 Abs. 1 ZGB. Inhalt einer Fahrwegdienstbarkeit und guter Glaube des Dritteigentümers.

Rechtskraft: · Diese Entscheidung ist rechtskräftig.