Communion between brothers and reimbursement of expenses

The division of jointly owned property between siblings , especially when only one of the co-owners has enjoyed it exclusively, incurring maintenance costs or making improvements, represents one of the most frequent and sensitive issues in inheritance and property law. The ruling of the Court of Cassation, Civil Section II, No. 29035 of November 3, 2025, clearly addresses this issue, reiterating principles that are now well-established but often misunderstood in practice, and providing fundamental operational guidance for anyone involved in the division of an inheritance or the dissolution of joint ownership.

• The story: communion between brothers and exclusive use of the property
• Decisions on the merits: division, adjustments and civil fruits
• The principle affirmed by the Court of Cassation: no to art. 1150 of the Civil Code
• The right to reimbursement of expenses: mandate and management of affairs
• Improvements and expenses as an integral part of the common good
• The inapplicability of Article 1110 of the Civil Code in the case of exclusive possession
• Practical implications for inheritance divisions between siblings

The story: communion between brothers and exclusive use of the property

The case before the Court involved two brothers who were co-owners of a property purchased jointly . One of the brothers had owned and used the property exclusively for a long period, incurring maintenance costs and making improvements. The other brother, excluded from the enjoyment of the property , filed a lawsuit seeking the dissolution of the joint ownership, the payment of civil interest for the exclusive use of the property, and compensation for damages resulting from the inability to access the property.

The brother who occupied the property opposed the requests, requesting reimbursement of the expenses incurred, arguing that the work had increased the value of the property and that this increase should be recognized.

Decisions on the merits: division, adjustments and civil fruits

The Court ordered the dissolution of the joint ownership, assigning the property to the brother who previously held it, with the obligation to balance the property in favor of the other brother and to pay the civil fruits for exclusive use. On appeal, following the sale of the property at auction, the proceeds were divided among the co-owners, recognizing the relevance of the improvements to the property's valuation and confirming the obligation to pay the civil fruits.

Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging, albeit from opposing perspectives, the criteria adopted for the reimbursement of expenses and for determining their respective entitlements.

The principle affirmed by the Court of Cassation: no to art. 1150 of the Civil Code

The Court of Cassation rejected both appeals, upholding the merits of the case in their entirety. A co-heir or co-owner who has owned the common property exclusively cannot invoke Article 1150 of the Civil Code , which provides the possessor in good faith with compensation equal to the increase in value of the property due to the improvements made.

According to the Supreme Court, this provision does not apply to relationships between co-owners or co-heirs, since exclusive possession of the common property does not transform the co-owner into an "external" possessor with respect to the other co-owners. Their relationship with the property remains based on a common title.

The right to reimbursement of expenses: mandate and management of affairs

This does not mean, however, that a co-owner who has incurred expenses is left without protection. The Court of Cassation clarifies that he or she is entitled to reimbursement for expenses incurred for the preservation and improvement of the common property, but not based on the increase in value, but rather according to the nominalistic principle.

Reimbursement is based on the concept of tacit mandate or management of someone else's business, since the person who incurred the expenses did so in the interest of the other co-owners. It follows that the reimbursement must concern the amount actually spent, and not any increased value acquired by the property.

Improvements and expenses as an integral part of the common good

Another important point in the ruling concerns the fate of improvements and maintenance costs. The Court states that they become part of the common property and must be considered in the valuation of the property at the time of division, in determining the shares due to the co-owners, and in the payment of adjustments.

In other words, the expenses incurred do not remain an "external" fact to the division, but have a direct impact on the overall structure of the patrimonial interests between the co-heirs.

The inapplicability of Article 1110 of the Civil Code in the case of exclusive possession

The Court of Cassation also excludes the application of Article 1110 of the Civil Code, which allows an individual co-owner to request reimbursement for expenses incurred for the maintenance of the common property in the event of neglect by others. This provision presupposes the effective participation of all co-owners in the property, a circumstance that ceases when only one of the co-owners has exclusive possession of it.

In these cases, the relationship must be brought back to the rules of the mandate or business management, with the consequences described above.

Practical implications for inheritance divisions between siblings

Ruling no. 29035/2025 is particularly relevant in inheritance divisions between siblings , where it is common for only one co-heir to use the inherited property, incurring expenses over time. The ruling clarifies that exclusive use creates the obligation to pay civil benefits to the other co-heirs. Expenses incurred are eligible for reimbursement only for the nominal amount. Improvements impact the property's appraisal but do not justify claims for compensation proportionate to the increase in value.

This is a balance aimed at avoiding unjustified enrichment and ensuring a correct distribution of the economic effects of the communion.

The Court of Cassation, with the ruling under review, confirms a rigorous approach, yet one consistent with the nature of joint inheritance. Those who use the common property exclusively cannot be treated as possessors in good faith pursuant to art. 1150 of the Civil Code, but at the same time, they are not left without protection for expenses incurred in the common interest.

For those facing a division of property between siblings or co-heirs, this ruling represents a fundamental point of reference, useful both in the pre-trial phase and in litigation, and confirms the importance of correctly reconstructing the economic relationships that developed during the co-ownership.

The Agenzia delle Successioni remains available for further information and specialist assistance in matters of succession, inheritance divisions and dissolution of joint ownership.