Claim for the dissolution and settlement of co-ownership in shares: from the demand to registration of the judgment

The law compels no one to remain in co-ownership. If the co-owners do not agree on its dissolution and settlement, the court decides on the application of any one of them (Section 142(1)). The rules the court applies are themselves well known: it first considers division of the property, then awarding it to one or more co-owners against reasonable compensation, and only lastly a sale; they are summarised briefly in the question on dissolving co-ownership against a co-owner’s will. The outcome and the costs of the dispute, however, depend to a large degree on how it is prepared and conducted. That is what this article focuses on.

Before the claim

Agreement is usually quicker and cheaper. In the case of immovable property it must be in writing (Section 141(1)) and is entered in the cadastre by constitutive registration. If agreement fails, it is worth sending the other co-owners a written demand with a specific proposal before filing the claim: who will take over the property, against what compensation and within what period it will be paid. The statute does not require it, but in the dispute it shows that you turned to the court only after an unsuccessful attempt to agree, which may play a part in the decision on costs.

Preparation also includes an expert report or at least an expert estimate of value, and an assessment of whether the property can actually be divided. Without this, neither the amount of compensation nor the method of settlement can sensibly be proposed. Encumbrances must also be checked. The dissolution and settlement of co-ownership may not be to the detriment of persons holding rights attaching to the property (Section 142(3)), so a bank’s lien will not be extinguished by the settlement; the procedure is described in the question on encumbrances in the settlement of co-ownership.

The claim and the proposed method of settlement

The claim is brought by a co-owner against the other co-owners and the operative part must dissolve and settle the co-ownership in relation to all of them, so the title sheet and the probate files must be used to establish precisely who they are today. The claimant proposes a specific method of settlement and the amount of compensation. The court, however, is not bound by that proposal:

The court may go beyond the relief sought and award more than the parties claim only where a particular manner of arranging the relationship between the parties follows from a special regulation.

— Section 216(2) of Act No. 160/2015 Coll. (unofficial English translation)

The settlement of co-ownership is precisely such a case. In its order in case 9Cdo/133/2024 of 15 April 2025 the Supreme Court restated the settled case law under which the order of the methods of settlement in Section 142 is binding on the court, but the court is bound neither by the claim nor by a counterclaim and may divide the property even where the claimant sought to have it awarded to himself.

What has to be proved in the proceedings

On division, the court has regard to the size of the shares and to the effective use of each new item of property. Division of immovable property is not readily possible where, even after modifications, separate items of property would not arise or the resulting parts could not serve their purpose. In the case of land, according to the decision cited above, the assessment covers land-use planning, access to roads, the location, shape and area and, in the case of built-up land, also the need for the owner of the building not to lose access to it. If the court divides the land, it may create an easement over the new parcel in favour of another new parcel (Section 142(3)).

Where the property is awarded to one party, the core of the dispute is reasonable compensation. It is based on the general value of the property at the time of the settlement, not as at the date the claim was filed, because what is decisive for the judgment is the position at the time it is pronounced (Section 217(1) CCP), and it is usually determined by an expert. In lengthy proceedings it is therefore worth watching whether the report has become outdated and proposing a new one in good time; in case 9Cdo/133/2024 the courts rejected as out of time a request to establish the current value which the party made only at the hearing. Alongside this, the co-owners may also assert what is known as a wider settlement, for example the costs of repairs and investments incurred by one of them. In its order in case 4Cdo/94/2024 the Supreme Court recalled that with such claims it is necessary to distinguish whether the costs were necessary or otherwise, whether the others consented to them, and accordingly also when they become time-barred. Claims arising from investments should therefore be asserted in good time and supported by evidence of payment.

Costs and registration in the cadastre

Proceedings for the dissolution and settlement of co-ownership are contentious proceedings, and costs are governed by the principle of success under Section 255 of the Code of Civil Contentious Procedure. According to paragraph 40 of the cited decision 9Cdo/133/2024 and judgment III. ÚS 138/2022 of the Constitutional Court, there is no schematic rule that each party bears its own costs; the court assesses the whole course of the proceedings and also whether the claimant had good reason to turn to the court.

A final judgment is a public document on the basis of which the change of ownership is entered in the cadastre by way of a declaratory record (Section 34(1) of Act No. 162/1995 Coll.). Where land is divided, a geometric plan, to which the operative part of the judgment refers, is required in order to register the new parcels.

We assess the situation, prepare the demand and a draft agreement and, if these do not succeed, the claim with the expert materials, and provide representation through to registration in the cadastre as part of our settlement of co-ownership in shares service. If you are still considering whether to sell your share, see also the question on co-owners’ pre-emption rights.

How this will work under the new Civil Code

On 1 October 2026, the National Council of the Slovak Republic approved the new Slovak Civil Code, which will take effect on 1 July 2027. The order of the methods of settlement will remain: division, awarding the property against reasonable compensation and only then sale. As the order is laid down by law, the court should not be bound by the claimant’s proposal under the new rules either. The following will change, however:

• Separation. It will also be possible to sue for separation from co-ownership. Only the claimant leaves; the others remain co-owners.
• Division. The court will not divide the property if this would substantially reduce its value or if it is to serve a particular purpose as a whole. Unequal parts may be offset in money.
• Awarding the property. The court will consider in particular the size of the shares and the ability to pay compensation.
• Protecting a co-owner who wants to stay. The new code does not take over the rule that the court will not dissolve co-ownership for reasons deserving special consideration. In the dispute, the other co-owners will be able to object and seek postponement of dissolution by up to two years if this prevents a financial loss or a serious threat to the legitimate interest of any of them. Dissolution may not be sought at an inappropriate time or solely to the detriment of another co-owner.
• Mutual claims. On dissolution, claims and debts connected with the common property will also be settled, which should cover investments too. In a sale, they will be paid from the proceeds before these are distributed.

From 1 July 2027, the new rules will also apply to co-ownership that arose earlier. There is no special rule for proceedings commenced before that date, so it is not certain whether a court deciding later will apply the existing or the new criteria. If you are filing a claim now, prepare arguments for both regimes and attach to a proposal for awarding the property proof that you can pay the compensation, such as a loan commitment.

Status as of 22 October 2026: the act has been approved and was signed by the President on 20 October 2026, but has not yet been promulgated in the Collection of Laws. Until 30 June 2027, the rules described above in this article apply.