Apportionment of land division costs

"The co-owners must share the costs of dividing their land according to their share"

It is desirable that co-owners find solutions for the development, division or sale of their co-owned property and avoid disputes that may end up in Court, which will further worsen relations between them, especially when it comes to close relatives. Even in the event that they reach a written agreement on the division of their jointly owned property and determine their share of the expenses according to each one's share, they must cooperate and fulfil the obligations that each undertakes and that logic and the common good prevail, rather than obtaining an advantage of one at the expense of another or other co-owners.

Matters such as the affection of a part resulting from the division of the land, street planning, compulsory acquisition or terms imposed by the Authorities, should be resolved in a fair way, instead of leading the co-owners to create a dispute and negative feelings. Since they agree that the expenses of the division will be shared equally if the co-owners are two or when they are more according to the share of each, they owe cooperation and adherence to the agreement and sharing of the expenses of the division.

Decision of the Court of First Instance

Two brothers who were co-owners of a ? share each of a land which their father had gifted them, by a written agreement agreed to divide it and each to receive his own share. They would sign any application for the division and declaration of assignment, granting, reduction due to street planning and anything else legally requested of them by the competent Municipal, Land Registry or other Authorities. All costs of division agreed to be paid in proportion to their share. They also agreed that if there is a street planning, compulsory acquisition or other factor that will affect negatively or positively the agreed plot that each of them will receive, then this impact will be burdened or benefited entirely by the one whose plot will be affected by any changes.

The relevant subdivision permit was issued by the competent Town Planning Authority and, among other requirements, the following conditions were imposed: (a) the part of the plot affected by the widening of the registered road to be granted, constructed and registered as a public road and (b) along of the widened road to build a paved sidewalk. The brother accepted the affection of his plot even though the area was decreased. Also, in order to implement the division, he paid the relevant expenses related to the costs of the construction of the sidewalk and asked the other brother to contribute a half share in the expenses, but he refused since in his view it actually benefited the part received by his brother.

The matter resulted in a dispute before the Court to decide whether the costs of the construction of the pavement under the agreement were part of the costs borne by the parties. The Court of First Instance concluded that the terms of the agreement left no doubt as to what the two brothers really agreed to, namely that upon division each of them should bear equally all the expenses of the division and therefore issued a decision against the brother who refused to pay half the costs.

Judgment of the Supreme Court

The matter did not end there since the first instance decision was appealed. The Supreme Court, in its judgment issued in C.A.165/2016 dated 24.7.2024, held that the interpretation of the terms of a document, as the Court of First Instance diagnosed, is a legal matter and task of the Court. It analyzed the principles governing the interpretation of a contract and did not agree with the appellant brother that because it was stipulated in the agreement that if there was a division the impact would be borne by the party whose plot would be affected, he would also bear the entire costs of the division.

Construction of the sidewalk was a condition of the subdivision permit. The costs for the construction of the sidewalk, which was borne entirely by the respondent, was an expense necessary to effectuate the division, and it was rightly held that it should be equally borne by the co-owners as per their agreement. It concluded that without the fulfilment of the terms of the division permit, the division would not take place and this would, as both sides admitted, be to their detriment, which is why the appeal was dismissed.