Condominium: serial accumulator ordered to pay damages and remove objects

Serial accumulators do not exist only on TV, but being one in one's own flat is very different from being one in a condominium where the damage produced can cost over 4 thousand euros. This was the outcome of the case examined by the Court of Florence (judgement 1872/2025) where the objects of a condominium hoarder had obstructed access to the landing, the cellars, the electric cabin and the lift's overflow pit. This constituted anunlawful occupation of condominium spaces, which was promptly noted by the Court.

As is well known, a co-owner or joint owner may make use of a common good, provided that he does not alter its purpose and does not impede the equal use, actual or potential, by the other co-owners. The notion of equal use of the common property is not to be understood in terms of absolute identity of the use of the property by each co-owner, since the identity in time and space of that use would entail a substantial prohibition for each participant to use the property for his own exclusive or particular advantage, even where the balance between the co-owners in the enjoyment of the object of the communion is not altered (Court of Cassation, 8177/2022).

Moreover, each co-owner is also entitled to derive a greater or more intense use from the property than that of the others (Court of Cassation, 6458/2019), however, the twofold limitation laid down by the rule must always be observed. In fact, the use of the common property by one of the co-owners or joint owners, even more intensely than that of the others, cannot result in a quantitative or qualitative impairment of that of the other co-owners, which results in the occupation of part of the property or in any case in the attraction of the same or part of it to the exclusive availability of some, entailing the removal from the enjoyment of the other participants (Court of Cassation, 4372/2015). In such cases, in fact, there would be a real abusive occupation of the common parts (Court of Cassation, 97/2021).

From the evidence adduced at trial, the condominium was found to have discharged its evidentiary burden of proving that the defendant had exceeded the limits set forth in Article 1102 of the Civil Code (Court of Cassation, 35213/2021). The condominium owner had, over the years, deposited various objects of all kinds, including foodstuffs, in the condominium spaces: he had even acknowledged this in court. Witness evidence had confirmed that the placement of the objects prevented, in particular, access to the cellars, the energy meter and the lift shaft. The concierge had confirmed that, in addition to also attracting cockroaches, the household goods prevented her from cleaning the room facing the flat of the tenant. While the employee of the company responsible for the maintenance and inspection of the condominium lift system had informed the administrator that the access door to the pit was not accessible due to the accumulation of various materials and that it was necessary to clear and keep the access free at all times, which, according to lift regulations and directives, can never be near flammable objects.

The condominium's request to obtain the condemnation to remove all the objects deposited in the condominium spaces was granted, with a term of fifteen days from the notification of the judgement to do so, authorising the condominium to act, with costs to be borne by the accumulator. The claim for compensation for the loss of use of the condominium spaces was also upheld. Moreover, the condominium had expressly proved the loss of enjoyment of the condominium spaces due to the occupation, and the settlement was established on an equitable basis, pursuant to Article 1226 of the Civil Code, in the sum of €3,800.00, revalued and inclusive of compensatory and legal interest.