Let's live together: how not to violate the rights of neighbors in the area

What are the rights of neighbors to take into account on the site, not to get into a problematic situation?

Human nature being selfish. This trend is clearly visible through a huge amount of litigation between neighbors. But often an attack on someone else's property and did not carry over a malicious intent. For example, living a Bob for 10 years on his site and adjacent land was empty. And Vasya decided to put the bath on its own site, where it was convenient, but the boundaries are not violated. And suddenly, unexpectedly, there is Vasya neighbor. And building near the baths garage. A roof bath, it turns out, is made so that the snow off it goes directly to where the calls in the car. And here begins the litigation instead of the neighbor's friendship.

Unfortunately, to tell in advance which side to take in such situations, the court can not. Despite the fact that many aspects clearly defined in law. In this article, we present some examples of judicial decisions in situations with neighbor "wars."

Content:

• Do not violate the rights of neighbors or of the rules of planning in figures
• When the neighbors there is no agreement: participants FORUMHOUSE also violate the rights of the neighbor
• A judge that? Or humanity in relation to neighboring rights violators
• Bath be: Court refused to demolish the baths, built with violations
• The bath was demolished: the court decided to dismantle the unauthorized structure
• on the roof of ice and snow breakers to be: the court for the security of the neighbors of the site
• Fence be: the court did not agree with the arguments of the demolition of the fence
• Birch tree, an apple tree and carry toilet: court agreed with the massive violations of neighboring rights

Do not violate the rights of neighbors or of the rules of planning in figures

Recall of distances, the minimum value to which a neighboring portion must be respected in suburban areas regulated in accordance with DP 53.13330.2011:

- not less than 3 meters to the house and not less than 6 meters from the windows of the living rooms of your home to the buildings on the neighboring property;

- not less than 1 meter before the bath, garage, shed and other buildings;

- not less than 4 meters from the buildings, which contain livestock or birds;

- at least one meter for the bushes, for sredneroslye 2 meters and 4 meters trees for tall trees.

The distances to the neighboring area boundaries are measured from the base or wall construction, if the structure elements (porch roof overhang, and so on. D.) Protrude no more than 50 cm from the wall plane. If more than 50 cm, then the distance considered by the protruding portions or projections on the ground.

NB! The norms mentioned SP 53.13330.2011 not apply in the case of private housing. They need to specify on the local government level.

The important points are also fire breaks, i.e. a minimum distance of 3 meters from an adjacent fence and not less than 5 meters from the red line (areas where there are power lines, roads, communication networks and et al.).

Standards insolation or 3 shading constitute continuous hours in spring-summer period or total duration of 3.5 hours.

When the neighbors there is no agreement: participants FORUMHOUSE also violate the rights of the neighbor

Unfortunately, many of the participants FORUMHOUSE had to deal with situations where the differences with neighbors move beyond verbal differences and oblique views of the fence in the area of ​​judicial proceedings.
Often such situations arise without malicious intent, but by the banal ignorance or improvidence. But the latter does not absolve us from responsibility.

Paul and Cyrus not told at the forum, what the outcome of their story, let us hope that they are able to agree with the neighbors.

and participant got into trouble FORUMHOUSE Nafania.

In her case, a court in Khabarovsk, unfortunately, was on the side of the second participant.

A fragment of the court's decision:

Special attention is paid to want something that is always before you go to a lawsuit in court, try to solve the problem through peaceful means and negotiations. Not all the people around us maladaptive personality or individuals who deliberately want to cause us problems, regardless of other people's rights.

User Kate in comments to the situation Paul wrote:

If you are just planning some construction on your property, already knowing that it would be in violation of existing rules, but you have good relations with neighbors, and they agree with your plans, we recommend that you take out this agreement notarized. In the future, if the neighbor will claim, the document will be your counterargument. However, not a guarantee, that the court does not satisfy the requirement of the claimant neighbor.

If you are asked to consent to the neighbors for some action, do not forget to mention all the fundamental parameters, so you do not become a victim of his own goodness and shortsightedness. As an example, the user has happened Koomaa:

A judge that? Or humanity in relation to neighboring rights violators

A review of judicial practice, judges often take very loyal to the violators position. Upon the request to demolish the buildings due to non-compliance meter indentation remains, as a rule, are not satisfied. Decisions about the extreme measures (demolition) are accepted only in cases of gross violations of fire safety and obvious threat to life and health. In other cases, the court shall make a decision that will reduce the negative impact of other people's property on your site. For example, the judge may decide to install additional storm water runoff, if the claim concerned the flooding area with another roof. In cases where the violation of the rights to remove only the demolition or partial dismantling of the buildings, the court denies the plaintiffs in the requirements on account of their insignificance. This position is due to the fact that the removal of structures will suffer for a greater loss than when they started the construction discomfort. But unambiguous and uniform trend in court decisions no.

It should be noted that the established urban and sanitary regulations are advisory and not binding. In addition, the SNIP 2.07.01-89 "Urban Development. Planning and construction of urban and rural settlements "have a point, indicating that the owners of the adjacent sites may not comply with the established rules, in the case of agreement on other sizes and indents borders. Therefore, the best option - the existence of a settlement agreement without bringing the case to court.

Bath be: Court refused to demolish the baths, built with violations

Kamensky city court of the Penza region, 2015.

N citizen to sue a neighbor about the demolition of the bath. Since the latter part of demolished a fence between the site and put it structure. N believes that the bath was built with violations, it violated its distance from the site, the building creates a fire hazard, and therefore a threat to life and health. In addition, the roof slope directed toward the portion N and accordingly precipitation with neighboring roof accumulate on its site and destroy the foundation of buildings nearby.

the plaintiff's arguments. SNP 2.07.01-89 violated in part a distance of 1 meter from the boundary portion thereof, to which a corresponding consent has not been given. SNP refers to 02/30/97, which says that between the sections should be fence mesh or grid instead of a blind wall bath. Violated fire safety requirements.

Counter-defendant. The measures to divert rainfall and water bath on its own site. fire safety requirements are met (oven of refractory bricks around fireproof materials) bath fired 1-2 times per quarter.

According to visit the site specialist of supervisory activities, where terraced house all the outbuildings. Bath abuts against the defendant's commercial buildings that are located under one roof. Transfer baths 1 meter does not change the situation in terms of fire safety.

According to the findings of expert opinion bath transponder location relative to the boundary with the adjacent plot of land does not meet the requirements of urban planning 42.13330.2011 SP and SP 30-102-99 (at least 1m).

But the fact that the room was built in violation of the rules can not itself be a reason for demolition since no evidence of violation of the rights of others.

The court's decision: to deny the plaintiff in the request to demolish the bath.

The bath was demolished: the court decided to dismantle the unauthorized structure

A similar situation occurred in Tukaevsk District Court of the Republic of Tatarstan in 2017.

The plaintiff asked the court to demolish the unauthorized construction (bath) of its neighbor, which was built in violation of the allowable distance.

From the materials of the case that there are violations SP 53.13330.2011 during the construction of a garden house and a bathhouse on the site. Facilities for collection bath sinks located less than a meter away from an adjacent section of the border. Fire break as there are violations SP 4.13130.2013. Thus, these disorders can lead to threats to life and health in the event of a fire, as well as the negative impact on the soil at both sites. Also confirmed that the bath is the unauthorized construction.

The Court considered the plaintiff's claim reasonable and ordered the respondent to demolish the bath.

on the roof of ice and snow breakers to be: the court for the security of the neighbors of the site

In 2016 in Bashkortostan N citizen filed a lawsuit against his neighbor, demanding change roof configuration on his garage, set device and compensate snegozaderzhivayuschie moral injury.

neighbor's roof structure was located in such a way that the snow went from her to the claimant of land and created discomfort (hard to walk, and it is impossible to park a car), and in the case of ice, and the danger for the health of members of his family.

The court granted the plaintiff's claim (except for non-pecuniary damage) and ordered the defendant to establish snegozaderzhivayuschie device.

Fence be: the court did not agree with the arguments of the demolition of the fence

The Supreme Court of the Republic of Udmurtia, 2016.

The plaintiff appealed to the court demanding that its neighbor demolished illegally built a fence. The fence was built on the border areas with the foundation, and is classified by the plaintiff as the capital structure. A distance of less than a meter, and there was no indentation from the border area of ​​buildings claimant. The height of the fence exceed 1.5 meters.

According to the plaintiff at the neighbor was not received permission to build a major structure (of the fence), and also violated his rights in terms of shading fence area and landings.

Kontargumenty defendant. The fence is installed at the site and the owner is a fence, for which construction permission is not necessary.

The court of first instance, and then the Court of Appeal decided to deny the plaintiff's claims. The Court disagreed with the arguments that the fence is the property. SNIP 2.30.97, which indicates that the fence should be mesh or trellis height of 1.5 meters, do not apply to the territory of gardening. According to the judges, the loss during the demolition of a fence for the defendant would not have been comparable to the plaintiff rendered by the inconveniences of the fence.

Birch tree, an apple tree and carry toilet: court agreed with the massive violations of neighboring rights

Kaltansky District Court of Kemerovo region, 2015.

The plaintiff asked the court to order the defendant to carry tall birch, located at a distance of 0.98 m from the border area, trees (0.3 meters from the boundary), apple intersecting Mezhuyev and WC of 0.4 meters from its portion.

the plaintiff's arguments. Tall Trees, old, in disrepair, threads hanging portion on the risk to fall on it, part obscured portion. Initially, the woman tried to negotiate with the neighbor and ask her to bring the trees in order. Requests were ignored. In addition, she spoke to the chairman of the CHT and hands had a statement of the Board CHT, the resolution to cut down on the protruding portion of the branch. Location toilet contradict SP 42.13330.2011 and snip 30-02.97. Before going to court was carried out technical examination, the results of which confirmed the plaintiff's arguments.

Counter-defendant. Trees (other than apple) is a plant shelter belts have been planted by the defendant, and to cut down them, she has no right according to the statement of the general meeting of the CHT. Toilet does not infringe the plaintiff's property line, as she put the wrong fence and illegally increased personal territory. Shade trees absent from the claimant portion from 10 to 17 hours.

After reviewing all the materials, the court held the defendant to cut down trees and remove the toilet.

Let's live in peace!

So, as we see litigation between neighbors, does not have the same solutions. Right side is with a strong arguments and the correct legal position. Moreover, it affects the practice on the same matters in a particular region. So try not to violate the rights of your neighbors, and not to bring the case to court. And if your rights are infringed, try to defend them. But first learn all the legal aspects, it will increase your chances of a competent defense of their interests.

Subscribe to the channel! Join FORUMOUSE!