Who owns the attics and basements?

Almost every apartment building owner interested in the question: Who owns in his home attics and basements? Not all attics and basements are the same in the first place, once it is worth noting that not always the attics and basements are places of public use, and therefore belong to the owners of home ownership. Thus, under the provisions of Sec. 2, § 2 of Art. 235 and paragraph 1 of Art. 290 of the Civil Code and Art. 36 LCD RF common ownership owned facilities that are not parts of the flats, and designed to serve more than one room in the house, including mezhkvartirnye landings, stairs, lifts, elevators and other shafts, corridors, technical floors, attics, basements, where there are utilities, serving more than one other room in the house the equipment (technical basements), as well as a roof, protecting and supporting non-bearing structure of the building, mechanical, electrical, plumbing and other equipment outside or inside the premises and serving more one room. Thus, by common ownership law covers the technical floors, ie basements, attics, which are utilities, as well as other servicing more than one premises equipment. In this case, if there are no non-residential premises and other utilities serving more than one premises equipment, as well as other accessories available, allowing the room to include the technical premises, specified property can not apply to common areas and listed common property of all owners of an apartment house . By itself, the location of the room in the basement or attic is not only evidence of its technical and service appointment. Secondary fund, however, if we take the second fund, in most cases, obtaining statements from Rosreestra you may find that basements and attics are already listed as a property of certain persons or entities. How is this possible? It's very simple. In the 90s at the time of total privatization, privatization of such facilities, which under current law are the common property of the owners of the house. However, at the time the law was different, but the owners had less (by a large number of council flats). Later privatized or bought on lease commercial spaces in attics, basements and rescheduled in the property and more new customers. In addition, there have been such a relationship under which the reconstruction was carried out in homes and basements and attics in fact translated into residential or commercial spaces with a special purpose, and the data part of the house already on the documents were not public places, and moved into the property those investors that the reconstruction. New Looking similar examples, with new buildings, in this case, you must pay attention to the design documentation of a new home. Because of the design documentation BTI authorities are technical and cadastral passport to all the rooms in the new house. So, if the project documentation attics and basements are exactly those, nor for anyone not assigned and not withdrawn under certain goals, they will be places of public use. If these premises would be treated as special and separate from the possibility of a separate operation, the developer will be able to issue title to the premises directly to the data itself and dispose of them in the future, or at the stage of building a house on the right to assign the said premises to third parties. The jurisprudence jurisprudence based on the recognition of non-residential premises in which there is no communication service at home, belonging to the ownership of a person to construct such a house or a person who has acquired this non-residential premises or on other legal grounds. However, even if registration of ownership of attics and basements for certain individuals, depending on the reason of such acquisition, the owners of the house can go to court to protect its legitimate right to claim the total property at home. In accordance with paragraph 9 of Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court on July 23, 2009 № 64 "On some issues of practice dealing with disputes about the rights of owners of premises to the common property of the building." In the court considered arguments about recognizing the right of common ownership to the common property of the building, including in cases where the entry was made in Rosreestr the right of individual ownership of said property. If you own the common property of the owners of premises in the building (for example, ownership of common staircases, corridors, halls, access to and use of which are owners of premises in the building), but the right of individual ownership of common property is registered in the registry for a single person, owners of premises in this building right to demand recognition of a right of common ownership in the common property. The court considers this requirement as a similar request of the owner to eliminate all violations of his rights, not connected with deprivation of possessions (Article 304 CC RF). Meanwhile, if the person in whose name the registry entry was made on the right of individual ownership of the premises relating to the common property, possession of the premises, leaving the other owners access to this room, the owners of other premises in the building may appeal to the court for recovery of property from unlawful possession (Article 301 of the Civil Code), connecting it with the requirement of recognition of the right common ownership. To such requirements subject to the general limitation period (Article 196 CC RF). In the end, therefore, if you as the owner of the house, want to address the issue of use and disposal of public property in the house, such as for example, attics and basements, it is to start directly with the treatment of Rosreestr to establish the information - who owns the property and on what basis. Obtained in this way the basic information will determine what can and can not count on that home owners with respect to such places "common property".