In division proceedings, the court hearing the case is required to ex officio determine the composition of the joint property and then divide it. Moreover, the court settles all disputes of the co-owners over the ownership right, as well as mutual claims of the co-owners for possession of the property. All claims of this type should be reported already in the course of the departmental proceedings, because after the maturity of the decision, the parties cannot pursue them. The above rules result directly from the provisions on the division of the estate (Article 684 of the Code of Civil Procedure) and the division of joint ownership (Article 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure), which apply accordingly to other division proceedings.
In the decision on the division of inheritance or marital property, the Court should therefore rule separately on each item about which there is a dispute or was included in the joint property (or inheritance property). In practice, a question may arise what to do if the court omits some of the disputed items in the judgment and fails to divide them. In such a case, does the failure to divide the object mean that the object is not included in the joint property (and therefore cannot be divided), or does the court mistakenly omit the issue? The issue is important because in the first case an appeal should be made against the decision, and in the second – an application for supplementation of the decision.
The above-mentioned issues were raised by the Supreme Court in the resolution of September 17, 1969, III CZP 70/69, stating that in the described case the party should challenge the judgment with an appeal. The Supreme Court emphasized that in the proceeding for the division of property, the court examines all relations related to this division and that the decision on the division of joint property covers the entirety of the case. Due to this, the fact that an asset was not included in the decision is a substantially negative decision, corresponding to the fact that this asset was not included in the assets subject to division. The dissatisfied party may challenge the judgment, accusing the wrongful determination of the composition of the joint property, reconciling the entire judgment in its entirety, because correct determination of the composition and value of the joint property also determines the correctness of the remaining dispositions of the judgment.