RELEVANCE OF THE CASE
This case study is relevant both from the perspective of applying the Civil Code over time and from the perspective of statutes of limitations. Also important are the procedural rules that regulate the obligation of the plaintiff to prove their own claims by evidence that underpins the assertions made in the legal complaint.
Finally, this case is relevant from the standpoint of correctly identifying the legal basis that supports the invoked civil claim.
The civil law applies as long as it is in force, and legal acts or facts concluded or, as the case may be, committed or produced before the new law entered into force cannot generate legal effects other than those provided by the law in force at the date of their conclusion or, as the case may be, their commission or production.
The right of action, if it has a patrimonial object, is extinguished by prescription, if it has not been exercised within the term established by law, and with the extinguishing of the right of action referring to a principal right, the right of action regarding accessory rights is also extinguished. The law provides that any clause that deviates from the legal regulation of the prescription period is null.
Not least, under civil procedural norms, whoever makes an assertion during the trial must prove it, except in cases expressly provided by law.
SUMMARY OF FACTUAL SITUATION
In fact, the plaintiff was involved in a concubinage relationship with the predecessor of the defendants, during which period the predecessor acquired a property used as a dwelling.
By the complaint filed, the plaintiff, in opposition to the defendants, heirs of the deceased, requested the court to ascertain her ownership right, by way of accession by construction, over the property acquired representing a house, as well as to determine that at the building’s construction the plaintiff’s contribution was one half, and the predecessor’s was one half, and to order registration in the land register of her ownership right.
By modifying her action, the plaintiff changed her view of the situation and limited her requests to seeking the added value (increase in value) brought to the property representing the dwelling house and to ascertain that the plaintiff’s participation in that increase in value is one half, the other half belonging to the predecessor of the defendants.
In support of her claims, the plaintiff showed that she, together with the predecessor of the defendants, were involved in rehabilitating and renovating the property acquired by the deceased during the concubinage relationship, bringing a significant personal contribution in performing works of partial demolition of the house in the form it was at the time of acquisition and in constructing the new dwelling, consisting of both financial personal contributions and work performed by her together with the deceased.
PRESENTATION AND DEFENSE OF THE CASE
SUPPORT OF THE CASE BEFORE THE COURTS
The team of civil law attorneys from Brisc Legal provided assistance and representation to the defendants in this litigation.
In arguing for rejection of the plaintiff’s claims, the civil law team from Cluj essentially argued that the plaintiff’s claims are unfounded; the legal text invoked by her governs the performance of obligations assumed by a debtor of a contractual or legal obligation.
In this regard, it was shown that the plaintiff did not invoke the existence of any contract concluded with the predecessor of the defendants and cannot invoke legally any right over assets acquired by the former concubine during the period of cohabitation, this factual situation not being regulated by law as producing legal effects.
Exception of Prescription of the Right of Action
We requested dismissal of the lawsuit primarily as a result of the acceptance of the exception of prescription of the substantive right of action, argued on the basis that she should have asserted the claims indicated in her initial complaint within 3 years from the date on which the right of action arose, this period being clearly exceeded in this case, the property having been acquired by the deceased in 2004, and the plaintiff’s alleged financial contribution dating from 2007.
Thus, we showed the court that from the plaintiff’s last contribution (2007) until the time of filing the complaint (2019) more than 12 years elapsed.
Inadmissibility of the Complaint
In the alternative, we requested dismissal of the complaint as inadmissible. Inadmissibility was argued by the civil law team from Cluj from several perspectives.
The inadmissibility was argued from the standpoint of correct legal qualification of the complaint. In this sense, we showed the court that, under procedural norms, the complaint must include the legal grounds on which each point of claim is based, a rigor not respected by the plaintiff, who did not understand to clarify the basis of her claims.
Also, inadmissibility was addressed with respect to the limits of the claim deriving from the application of the legal institution of artificial real estate accession. We stated that in the event the court were to consider the applicability of the institution of artificial real estate accession, the effects of accession would be governed by the law in force at the date of the beginning of the work.
Thus, we showed the court that, given that the beginning of the works which the plaintiff claims to have contributed to financially were carried out at the earliest from the year 2005, the factual-premise submitted to the court is subject to the old Civil Code provisions regarding artificial real estate accession.
Additionally, inadmissibility was addressed by analyzing the hypothesis of a bad-faith third party versus a good-faith third party. Regarding this, regulations under the old Civil Code provided the possibility for the owner to either request removal of works made by a bad-faith third party or to preserve the works, but without restoring to the third-party the added value brought to the property.
Considering that legal provisions expressly regulate that the increase in value of the property on which a bad-faith third party built shall not be taken into account, the plaintiff’s claim by which she seeks the increase in value is inadmissible.
Lack of Foundation of the Claim
As a tertiary line of defense, the Brisc Legal team asked for dismissal of the complaint as unfounded with respect to procedural provisions that explicitly regulate the obligation of the plaintiff to prove her own claims, the burden of proof resting upon the person making the assertion.
Finally, in relation to the preceding, we showed that regardless of the legal basis that theoretically might support the right of claim invoked by the plaintiff, consisting of the increase in the value brought to the property, the prescription periods regulated by Decree no. 167/1958 apply, the only legal institution that could support the plaintiff’s claim being artificial real estate accession.
In support of this assertion, we showed that, given the fact that the effects of accession are governed by the law in force at the date of beginning of the works, the complaint filed by the plaintiff would be inadmissible in both the scenarios of bad-faith third party and good-faith third party.
Not least, we pointed out to the court that the plaintiff had not submitted to the case file any document from which it emerges that she contributed financially to purchasing materials or paying labor in the execution of works on the property.
COURT’S DECISION
In agreement with the arguments developed by our civil law team from Cluj-Napoca, the court of trial, adopting the considerations raised in support of the defendants’ defense, found that the plaintiff cannot invoke, by virtue of her concubinage relationship with the deceased, the presumption of community of property, it being necessary to present evidence about the plaintiff’s contribution, both in terms of its existence and its share.
In consideration of our arguments, the court held that the plaintiff did not submit in the case file any document from which it results that she contributed financially to purchase of materials or paying labor for the execution of works.
Thus, the court rejected as unfounded the complaint filed by the plaintiff, who was obliged by the court to pay the legal costs to the defendants.