The parties are former spouses whose marriage concluded on 20.09.1967g. It is terminated by a final of 23.04.1997g. decision on case № 564 / 95d. S. District Court. By decision of 02.04.1998g. on case . № 7153/97, the S. District Court between them is admitted partition of the car on an equal quotas, the decision of 18.06.1999g. It stated his removal at a public auction. At the first court hearing after admitting partition DN He brought an action against HK application based on Article 31, paragraph 2 of the property to pay the sum of 2085lv., representing compensation for the deprivation of use of the car during 10.12.1997g.- 03.02.1999g. In connection with this claim is found that the applicant has issued a call for payment of compensation to a request from 10.12.1997g., Adopted at its meeting held on the same day a hearing on the case.
Pursuant to Article 31, paragraph 2 ZS when common property is used personally by some of the owners, they owe compensation to others about the benefits of which are devoid of the day of the written request. In this case it was found that at the relevant time, the applicant was in possession of a key to the car and that the defendant did not not create obstacles to use it in accordance with its rights in ownership, which is why the appellate court correctly held that the claim was unfounded .