Facts
D. was the owner of a vast estate located on the outskirts of Geneva. Upon his death, his heirs, E. and F., divided this estate into two separate properties. Subsequently, F.'s parcels were sold to C., who then divided them. A. acquired one of these new parcels, no. 1609, with a one-quarter share of co-ownership on the dependent parcel no. 1023. A. also attempted to acquire the one-quarter co-ownership share of parcel no. 1023 dependent on parcel no. 1610, but B., the owner of the parcels resulting from the division of D.'s estate, objected to this.
In 2000, C. divided his parcel no. 1610 into two new parcels nos. 1816 and 1817, and transferred the one-quarter co-ownership share on parcel no. 1023 that was attached to parcel no. 1610 solely to parcel no. 1817, which he then sold to A. B. then contested this operation before the courts.
Considerations
The Federal Court ruled that C. could not entirely transfer the co-ownership share of the dependent parcel no. 1023 that was linked to parcel no. 1610 to the sole parcel no. 1817 without the consent of B., the co-owner for half of the dependent parcel no. 1023.
Indeed, the establishment of the dependent co-ownership is based on the unanimous agreement of the co-owners, who agree to link the co-ownership shares of the dependent parcel to specific main buildings. Consequently, the relationship between a main building and the dependent co-ownership share linked to it can only be modified with the…