Facts
The appellant [X.] is the owner of plot No. 2000, while the respondents [A.] , [B.] , [C.] , and [D.] are co-owners of plot No. 1000. Plot No. 1000 is built with a three-family house and borders the public [G.] street. The respondents plan to replace the house with a five-family house with a garage and create a new access in a southerly direction downhill. This access is based on a right of way registered in the land register, encumbering plot No. 2000 and benefiting plot No. 1000.
The High Court of the Canton of Lucerne recognized that the respondents are entitled to use the right of way and that the appellant must tolerate a passage of max. 3.2 m width. The counterclaim of the appellant for deletion of the right of way was dismissed.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined the admissibility of the appeal and came to the conclusion that it is fundamentally admissible. It then addressed the question of whether the entry of the right of way in the land register is unjustified. The appellant argued that the allocation of plot No. 1000 in 1931 was unlawful and that the entry of the right of way is therefore unjustified.
However, the Federal Court came to the conclusion that the allocation was carried out in a simplified procedure and that the owner of plot No. 1000, [I.] , as the owner of the encumbered property, simultaneously gave his consent. It also denied the necessity of consent from the neighboring owner and owner of plot No. 999.
The Federal Court also examined the question of whether the right of way must be limited to…