In the resolution of the Supreme Court of February 21, 2008, ref. No. III CZP 144/07, the Supreme Court considered whether the liability for satisfying the claims of the co-owner who made the expenditure for the joint is borne by persons who are co-owners of things at the time of ruling on liability in this respect, or by persons who are co-owners at the time when the expenditure is has been made.
Benefits and other revenues from the common thing fall to the co-owners in relation to the size of the shares. In the same proportion, joint owners bear the expenses and burdens related to the joint property. Article 207 of the Civil Code, which specifies the rules of participation in the expenses and revenues contributed to the joint property by co-owners, does not clearly define whether it concerns co-owners at the time of the decision or at the time of making the expenditure. For this reason, it was necessary to dispel interpretation doubts by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court pointed out that the claim for the reimbursement of the value of the expenditure incurred by one of the co-owners for the benefit of the joint venture is due against persons who were co-owners at the time the expenditure was made. In the opinion of the court, the provisions of the code indicate that the claim for reimbursement of the appropriate part of the expenses is a relative claim, i.e. arising and implemented in relations between the co-owner who incurred the expenses and the entity that, at the time of incurring them, was obliged to pay the appropriate part of the expenses.
The Supreme Court also considered whether it may be significant that the current co-owner of the property, obliged to return the value of the expenditure, acquired a share in the joint ownership on the basis of a free-of-charge agreement. In the case at hand, the co-owners sold their shares in the form of a donation. In the opinion of the Supreme Court, the free acquisition of a share in joint ownership will not matter. With art. 207 of the Civil Code, it does not follow that the legislator links the modification of the rules of settlements between co-owners with the gratuitous nature of the acquisition of a share.
It should be noted that the previous jurisprudence of the courts was different. However, since 2008, the courts have uniformly ruled that the claim for reimbursement of the value of expenditure incurred by one of the co-owners for the benefit of the joint venture against persons who were co-owners at the time the expenditure was made, also when these persons sold their shares free of charge.