Acquiescence to the use of a plot of land solely as a favour - The plot of land may be reclaimed at any time
The tenancy law case outlined below demonstrates that assurances and verbal confirmations will not impede the right of a legitimate heir to recover possession of part of a plot of land. The District Court in Plön has made it clear that, for all parties, there can only be legal certainty if arrangements are recorded in writing and, where appropriate, they have to be certified by a notary.
Once again, the adage that property transactions have to be recorded in writing proves true. This is because it does not matter what the owner of a plot of land promises his tenants and how frequently he confirms this to others. In cases such as the one below, even the District Court in Plön had no alternative but to accede to the claim of an heir to a plot of land for its recovery.
In the case that the District Court ruled on (of 26.1.2024, case reference: 74 C 131/20), person M was the owner of a plot of land. His neighbours built a patio and a carport on this plot of land. Subsequently, they created a gravel path and stored their rubbish bins and other items on the plot of land that belonged to a third party. Twenty years later, when the owner of the plot of land died, the heir demanded that they clear the plot. The neighbours maintained that the father of the heir had made his plot available for building the carport and had even actively helped in its construction. He had repeatedly told family members, neighbours and friends that these neighbours could use the plot. Ultimately, the heir sued for the assertion of his right - and won.
The judges at the District Court decided that the heir did have the right to recover possession of part of the plot of land. Accordingly, the father’s indisputable acquiescence could not be interpreted as being a declaration of intent to conclude a loan for use contract. Making the plot available for use solely through the father’s acquiescence should be regarded merely as a favour, consequently it was possible to reclaim the plot of land at any time. The court further ruled that the lender of the object is able to reclaim it at any time if the duration of the loan has been neither specified nor inferred from the purpose. Terminating the loan for use would not be permissible solely if ending the loan for use contract would result in a situation that was obviously not viable economically. However, terminating the loan for use after an operating life of around 20 years would not result in such a situation that was obviously not viable economically.
