A sister lives in an inherited house. Her brother works elsewhere and has not visited for years. When he wants to use a room, he discovers that the locks have changed. Can he demand keys? Is he owed payment for previous years? These questions need separate answers.

The examples are illustrative. Sources checked on 16 September 2026. This article concerns Polish law and records.

Ownership and use are different questions

Article 206 of the Civil Code entitles each co-owner to co-possess and use common property insofar as this is compatible with the others’ rights. There is no automatic equation between half the shares and half the rooms. The building and agreed arrangements matter.

Reconstruct the earlier agreement. Was the house assigned to one person for exclusive use? Did the other voluntarily refrain from using it, or were they prevented from doing so? These situations may look alike but require different assessments.

Basis: [1] art. 206 [2] Relevant guidance and reasoning — II CSKP 1509/22

Compensation does not accrue automatically

The Supreme Court has recognised that a co-owner may claim compensation where others use the property contrary to Article 206 and exclude that person from co-possession. ‘I own a share but do not live there’ is insufficient. The grounds, period and circumstances of exclusion must be established.

In the sibling example, requests for keys, replies to proposed use and earlier room-allocation agreements may matter. The amount and limitation period of any claim require separate assessment; comparable rental advertisements alone do not determine them.

Basis: [3] Relevant guidance and reasoning — III CZP 88/12

An agreement should cover everyday use

If shared use is possible, describe exclusive rooms, entrances, garden, parking, storage and access for repairs. Utilities and common-area costs are equally important.

A coloured floor plan is not enough. Address changes in occupancy and emergencies too. A use arrangement does not end co-ownership, so joint decisions about the building may still be needed.

Basis: [1] art. 199–201, 206–207

When discussion is not enough

Define the desired outcome: access, a use arrangement, settlement for a specific period or ending co-ownership. Each may require different action and evidence.

Changing the locks yourself does not clarify the legal basis of use and may worsen the dispute. Documents, a chronology and a precise request help assess the next step. Agreement about the entire family history is not required before addressing specific issues.

What to prepare

  • Evidence of shares and any use agreements.
  • A chronology of who occupied the house, when and on what basis.
  • Correspondence about access, keys and proposed arrangements.
  • Separate schedules of usage charges and common-property expenditure.

Remember

Not living in a house and being excluded from co-possession are different. Establish the facts before calculating claims.

Sources and references

Official legislation, judgments and institutional materials. The relevant sources are identified below each section.

  1. Polish Civil Code — consolidated text, Journal of Laws 2026, item 795 — opens a new windowart. 206; art. 199–201, 206–207
  2. Polish Supreme Court, II CSKP 1509/22 — use of common property — opens a new windowRelevant guidance and reasoning — II CSKP 1509/22
  3. Polish Supreme Court, resolution of seven judges, 19 March 2013, III CZP 88/12 — opens a new windowRelevant guidance and reasoning — III CZP 88/12
Educational information about Polish law and archival practice, not individual legal advice. Each case requires a review of its documents, circumstances and applicable rules.
← Back to all articles