Co-Ownership of Corporate Real Estate: Governance and Dispute Resolution

JUDr. Jakub Dohnal, Ph.D., LL.M.
JUDr. Jakub Dohnal, Ph.D., LL.M.
6.6.2026 | ARROWS law firm

Co-ownership of corporate real estate gives companies flexibility, but also brings a risk of conflicts. In this article, you will learn how, under the current legal framework as of 2026, to set up use, decision-making and dispute resolution so that shared assets support the company rather than paralyse it. Co-ownership of corporate real estate means that one building, complex or plot of land is owned by several persons in proportion to their shares. Each co-owner has rights to the entire property, but the exercise of those rights is limited by the same rights of the others. In practice, it is essential for co-owners to have clearly defined rules for use, allocation of costs and income, and the decision-making process—ideally in the form of a written agreement on the administration of the common property under the Czech Civil Code. In the event of disagreements, the law offers several levels of resolution.

The illustrative image shows a specialist discussing the topic of co-ownership of corporate real estate.

Why co-ownership of corporate real estate is a strategic topic

In the Czech Republic, co-ownership is typical for family businesses, where production halls, offices or land are divided among several family members through gifts or inheritance. This often creates a relationship between active and passive members who have different expectations regarding investments, returns and the holding period.

From a legal perspective, a co-ownership share expresses the extent of participation in rights and obligations. The share (expressed as a fraction or percentage) is recorded in the Czech Real Estate Cadastre. It is not a specific physical part of the building, but an ideal share in the property as a whole. Each co-owner may use the property and take its benefits, but must not restrict the others. These principles generate conflicts in reconstructions, leases, financing or enforcement proceedings.

From a business perspective, the advantage is sharing investment and operating costs. The disadvantages are deadlocks in decision-making, higher transaction costs and the risk that the passivity of a minority owner will block business development (e.g., expansion of production).

Our attorneys in Prague at ARROWS often see that entrepreneurs underestimate co-ownership relationships and leave them to the basic statutory framework or informal arrangements. This works as long as the project is thriving. However, in the event of disagreements, generational change or the entry of an investor, the shortcomings quickly become apparent. Timely prevention in the form of well-thought-out agreements is therefore the most effective legal investment.

Legal framework for co-ownership by shares of corporate real estate

A share is an asset in the legal sense and may be transferred, pledged or enforced against. Towards third parties, the co-owners act as a single owner and are jointly and severally (solidarily) entitled and obliged under legal acts. The concept of an ideal share means that no one owns a specific floor or building. Only by agreement can the use be effectively divided (e.g., one company uses the ground floor as a showroom, the other the upper floor as offices), which does not change the legal shares but defines day-to-day operations.

The management of the common property includes decisions on maintenance, investments or leases. The Czech Civil Code distinguishes three levels of decision-making:

  • Ordinary management (regular maintenance, minor repairs, short-term lease): a simple majority of votes is sufficient (according to the size of the shares).
  • Material matters (substantial improvement/deterioration of the property, change of use): at least a two-thirds majority of votes is required.
  • Extraordinary decisions (creation of a pledge, easement): the consent of all co-owners is required.

Entrepreneurs often mistakenly believe that they need the consent of everyone for any investment and allow themselves to be blocked by a minority. Others, on the contrary, underestimate that 100% consent is essential for a mortgage or an easement. ARROWS therefore recommends mapping in advance which category the intended step falls into.

How co-ownership arises in business practice

Co-ownership of corporate real estate may arise in several ways, which are often combined in business practice. The most common case is acquisition by contract, typically by a purchase agreement, where the property is purchased jointly by two or more natural persons or legal entities and the purchase agreement specifies the size of their co-ownership shares.

For properties recorded in the Czech Real Estate Cadastre, ownership arises only upon registration in the Cadastre, which also applies to co-ownership shares. The contract itself is only the legal title, but ownership arises only once the registration is carried out. Another common source of co-ownership is inheritance. If an entrepreneur dies and several heirs inherit their real estate, those heirs become co-owners by shares, often without actively planning it themselves.

In such situations, the law grants the other co-owners a statutory pre-emptive right to the transferred share, which applies only if the co-ownership arose by inheritance, acquisition upon death or another legal fact that the co-owners could not influence. It applies for six months from the creation of the co-ownership. After this period (for shares where the statutory pre-emptive right exists) or in cases where the statutory pre-emptive right did not arise at all (for example, in contractual acquisition), a co-owner may transfer their share to a third party without the obligation to offer it to the others first, unless the co-owners agree on a pre-emptive right contractually.

Co-ownership may also arise by a court or administrative authority decision, for example when settling the community property of spouses after a divorce, where the court does not award the property to one of the spouses but leaves it in co-ownership by shares. In the business environment, acquisition of co-ownership shares as part of reorganisations and mergers is also not uncommon, where part of the assets is transferred between merged or demerged companies and, as a result, multiple entities from one group or from different parts of a joint venture structure participate in one property.

In certain cases, co-ownership may also arise by adverse possession if several persons possess the property for the statutory period and meet the conditions of honest and genuine possession; in practice, however, this occurs rather exceptionally in a corporate environment.

For entrepreneurs and investors, it is important that each method of creating co-ownership may have different legal and tax consequences, for example in terms of pre-emptive rights, the possibility of unilateral termination of co-ownership, or the tax regime for acquisition and subsequent settlement. Our attorneys in Prague at ARROWS therefore first map in detail for each new client how the co-ownership arose, what contracts were concluded and whether there are specific arrangements, for example limiting the dissolution of co-ownership for a certain period or easements in favour of some co-owners.

Difference between co-ownership by shares, community property of spouses (SJM) and unit co-ownership

For corporate practice, it is essential to distinguish several legal regimes that are often confused in everyday language. In addition to co-ownership of real estate by shares, where each co-owner holds an ideal share, there is also the community property of spouses and unit co-ownership.

Community property of spouses is a specific form of matrimonial property regime in which the assets belong to both spouses without determining shares. If spouses purchase real estate as part of community property, the extract from the Cadastral Register will typically show a note on community property instead of specific shares.

From a corporate perspective, this can complicate situations where one spouse is an entrepreneur and the property is used for business purposes—because any transfer, encumbrance, or settlement must take into account the involvement of the other spouse.

Apartment co-ownership, by contrast, governs ownership of individual units in a building, where the unit owner is also a co-owner of the common parts of the building and sometimes the land. The management of the common parts is usually handled by the owners’ association (SVJ), which has its own rules for decision-making on repairs, investments, and costs; these rules differ from classic fractional co-ownership of land or a standalone building.

For entrepreneurs, it may be important whether they are buying a standalone administrative building in fractional co-ownership of several companies, or individual office units in a building with an SVJ. In both cases, it is “shared ownership”, but the legal regime and the ability to influence management differ fundamentally.

However, the most common corporate scenario addressed by this article is classic fractional co-ownership—i.e., a situation where several persons (individuals or legal entities) own ideal shares in a single property, whether it is a production hall, an office building, a retail park, or development land.

In such a case, the general regulation of co-ownership in the Czech Civil Code (§ 1115 et seq.) applies, and there is also room for contractual arrangements of specific relationships between co-owners, for example in the form of an agreement on the management of the common thing under § 1138 of the Czech Civil Code or a more detailed co-ownership agreement. These are the tools that the attorneys at ARROWS advokátní kancelář most often work with in practice.

Use and management of corporate real estate held in co-ownership

A co-owner has the right to use the property and share in the proceeds (e.g., rent) in proportion to their share. However, all co-owners are also jointly and severally liable for operating costs, maintenance, and repairs, regardless of whether they actually use the property.

When making decisions, the majority must respect the principle of fairness and loyalty and must not harm the minority. The minority, in turn, must not deliberately obstruct management. If a passive investor refuses to pay for repair costs (roof, elevators, etc.), the other co-owners may enforce reimbursement through the courts.

Decision-making on ordinary management: operations, maintenance, tenants

Day-to-day operations (servicing, minor repairs, insurance, ordinary leases) are decided by a simple majority based on shares. An owner with a 60% share can decide alone, but must inform the 40% co-owner.

The boundary between ordinary management and material matters is often a source of disputes. A short-term office lease is ordinary management (a simple majority is sufficient), but a long-term lease of the entire building with exclusive rights for the tenant already approaches an intervention requiring the consent of all. ARROWS attorneys recommend assessing major leasing transactions on a case-by-case basis.

Material interventions and strategic decisions (reconstruction, change of purpose, pledge)

Material interventions include investments changing the purpose or value of the asset (extensions, site conversions). The law requires at least a two-thirds majority here. If such a majority cannot be achieved, the court may decide upon a co-owner’s motion (§ 1139 of the Czech Civil Code).

To decide on encumbering the property (a pledge for a bank loan), the consent of all is strictly required. Banks typically require the signatures of all co-owners, which can paralyze the financing process in the event of internal conflicts. ARROWS recommends setting financing rules in advance in a written agreement.

Co-owners’ agreement on the management of the common thing (§ 1138 of the Czech Civil Code)

Co-owners may regulate management rules differently from the statutory regime. For real estate, this agreement must take the form of a notarial deed and must be filed in the Cadastral Register. Only then is it binding also on future acquirers of shares. The agreement can set out in detail how meetings operate, voting quorums, appointment of a manager, or mechanisms for resolving deadlocks

Frequently asked questions: Use and management of shared corporate real estate

1. Can the majority co-owner decide on a reconstruction without the minority’s consent?
For ordinary management, yes (simple majority). For material interventions, such as a substantial improvement or deterioration of the asset or a change of its purpose, at least a two-thirds majority of votes is required. For decisions that lead to encumbering the common asset or its termination, or to a substantial change of its purpose, the consent of all co-owners is even required. If you are unsure which category your plan falls into, it is advisable to consult the attorneys at ARROWS advokátní kancelář by e-mail at office@arws.cz.

2. Does a co-owner who does not use the property at all still have to pay maintenance costs?
Yes, the obligation to contribute to the necessary costs of managing and preserving the common asset is based on the size of the share, not on the extent of actual use. If such a co-owner does not pay, you can also pursue remedies through the courts—ARROWS advokátní kancelář attorneys can assist you with strategy preparation and enforcement after arranging it via office@arws.cz.

3. Do we need to vote even on a short-term lease of part of the building?
It depends on the internal rules and the nature of the lease; typically, it will be ordinary management decided by a majority based on shares, but for more extensive leases or a long term it may be a material matter. In practice, it is advisable to regulate these situations contractually in advance; ARROWS advokátní kancelář attorneys can advise you after contacting office@arws.cz.

Setting rules of use between co-owners and with tenants

An agreement on the factual division of space (who uses which part) should be in writing for legal certainty. It must respect the principle of equal treatment; however, it may be agreed that the owner using a more attractive space will pay higher operating costs. If a co-owner uses the property beyond their share without an agreement and compensation, unjust enrichment arises. The others may claim compensation in the amount of the usual rent. This claim is subject to a three-year subjective and a ten-year objective limitation period.

A lease agreement with a third party should be signed by all co-owners (or an authorised representative). Rental income is divided according to the size of shares unless the owners agree otherwise (e.g., due to uneven bearing of costs). Professional tenants often require evidence of internal co-owners’ agreements to eliminate the risk of future disputes.

Overuse of the premises (e.g., arbitrarily taking over part of the site) or non-payment of costs generates a debt. If one co-owner pays the invoices for utilities and insurance for everyone, they are entitled to proportional reimbursement of necessary costs. Unjust enrichment is difficult to prove in court and requires expert opinions. ARROWS recommends addressing these situations without delay.

Frequently asked questions: Use, rent and unjust enrichment

1. Can we “divide” the building with my co-owner so that one has exclusive use of the ground floor and the other the first floor?
Yes, this is common practice and the law does not exclude it; however, it is recommended to enter into a written use agreement that clearly describes who uses which part and how costs and revenues are shared. ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, can help you prepare such an agreement after you contact office@arws.cz.

2. What if a co-owner collects all the rent and refuses to pay me my share?
In that case, unjust enrichment is likely arising on their side and you are entitled to claim payment of the corresponding part of the rent, and potentially also default interest. It is advisable to gather evidence quickly and contact the attorneys at ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, who will prepare a formal demand and, if necessary, a lawsuit for you; you can reach them at office@arws.cz.

3. How do we calculate the amount of unjust enrichment for overuse of the premises?
Most often, it is based on the usual rent in the given place and time for the area or part of the property that the co-owner used “in excess”. An expert opinion is usually required for an accurate calculation; the lawyers at ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, can help you commission and interpret it if you contact them at office@arws.cz.

Typical disputes between co-owners of business real estate

A common dispute is a clash of business plans (e.g., long-term holding vs. a quick sale with a developer conversion). In family businesses, a generational conflict is added. The statutory framework does not address strategic development. If there is no co-ownership or shareholders’ agreement with exit scenarios, the dispute often ends up in court. ARROWS recommends structured negotiations or mediation before filing a lawsuit to avoid a forced sale at auction below market price.

If one owner does not communicate and does not pay, the property deteriorates. For ordinary management, a majority is sufficient; for significant matters, a court may substitute the missing consent under Section 1139 of the Czech Civil Code. A long-term passive owner is a risk for banks and investors. The solution is often a court settlement or a targeted buyout of their share.

Speculators buy minority shares (e.g., 1/4) below market price from indebted owners and then initiate court proceedings to terminate the co-ownership in order to obtain the entire property or sell it at auction. After the limitation of the statutory pre-emptive right, this approach is easier. The most effective defence is contractual prevention (contractual pre-emptive right, temporary prohibition of terminating the co-ownership).

Potential issues

How ARROWS helps (office@arws.cz)

Strategic conflict between co-owners: different ideas about selling or developing the property

Strategic advice and facilitation of negotiations: we will prepare solution options, legal and tax analysis of scenarios, and lead negotiations on your behalf regarding buyouts of shares or a joint sale.

Non-payment of costs and blocking of decisions by one co-owner

Debt recovery and litigation strategy: we will draft formal demands, conclude repayment agreements, prepare claims for reimbursement of costs, and, if necessary, a petition to terminate and settle the co-ownership.

Entry of a speculative investor through the purchase of a minority share

Defence strategy against “flipping”: we will analyse the situation, propose a course of action (agreement, buyout, court solution) and provide representation in negotiations and in co-ownership settlement proceedings.

Disputes over rent and unjust enrichment from overuse of the property

Financial and evidentiary support: we will arrange expert opinions, calculate unjust enrichment claims, and prepare filings so that the claims can be effectively asserted.

Deadlock in decision-making on reconstruction, pledging or financing

Structuring relations and changing the management regime: we will prepare a motion for a court-ordered arrangement under Section 1139 of the Czech Civil Code or a new co-owners’ agreement on the management of the common property in the form of a notarial deed.

Mechanisms for resolving disagreements and terminating co-ownership

Mediation is a voluntary out-of-court dispute resolution process involving an independent mediator. It makes it possible to separate emotions from business, and an approved agreement may have the effects of an enforceable title. It saves time and high costs (hundreds of thousands of Czech crowns) for expert opinions and court fees. ARROWS recommends mediation even during ongoing court proceedings.

If the co-owners cannot agree on a specific step (e.g., a necessary repair, a lease), the court may, upon a co-owner’s motion, decide and “arrange the relations according to equitable discretion”. It thus substitutes the missing consent. However, this tool does not address long-term dysfunction in the relationship; in that case, the co-ownership must be terminated entirely.

Termination and settlement of co-ownership by agreement

The law clearly gives preference to an agreement between co-owners on the termination and settlement of co-ownership over a court solution. Co-ownership can be terminated by an agreement of all co-owners, which must include arrangements on the method of settlement—i.e., who will acquire the property or part of it, what financial compensation will be paid, or whether the common asset will be sold and the proceeds distributed.

For real estate, the agreement must be in writing, and if the property is registered in the Cadastral Register, a registration (entry) of the ownership right under this agreement is required; without it, the change of ownership cannot be asserted against third parties. The agreement may contemplate several methods of settlement.

Co-owners often agree that one of them, or several of them, will acquire the entire property and the others will be paid out based on the usual market value of the property or a value determined by an expert opinion. Another option is a physical division of the property, if technically and legally possible—for example, dividing land into multiple plots or dividing a building into separate units.

Another option is a joint sale of the property to a third party and a distribution of the purchase price according to the co-ownership shares or according to another agreed key that takes into account, for example, prior investments or unequal use. The advantage of an agreement is flexibility – the co-owners can combine different settlement methods, adjust the maturity of compensation payments, arrange financing through loans, and at the same time avoid the costs and uncertainty of court proceedings.

The attorneys at ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, routinely prepare comprehensive agreements for clients on the termination and settlement of co-ownership, covering not only transfers of shares and the setting of compensation, but also related agreements with banks, tenants, or business partners, to minimise the risk that the settlement will disrupt day-to-day business operations.

Action for the termination and settlement of co-ownership: procedure and scenarios

If an agreement is not possible, any co-owner may at any time request termination of the co-ownership and its settlement through the courts. The basic rule is that “no one can be forced to remain in co-ownership”, with the only exceptions being cases where termination of the co-ownership is sought at an inappropriate time or solely to the detriment of a co-owner; even then, however, the court will typically only postpone the termination, for a maximum of two years.

An action for the termination and settlement of co-ownership is filed with the competent District Court against all other co-owners, and the court will dismiss it only in exceptional cases. The law provides for three basic methods of settlement, which the court must follow in a strict order: physical division of the jointly owned asset, awarding the asset to one or more co-owners for adequate compensation, and sale of the asset by public auction with distribution of the proceeds.

The court must assess the individual methods sequentially and properly justify each rejected method, usually on the basis of an expert opinion assessing the technical feasibility of division and the impact on the value of the property.

Physical division is the preferred method of settlement, especially for land or larger sites where multiple independently usable parts can be created. However, the court cannot order a division that would lead to a substantial decrease in the value of the asset; case law generally considers such a decrease to be a drop of more than approximately fifteen percent of the original value. For family houses, apartments, or compact commercial buildings, physical division is often impossible or impractical, and the court then proceeds to the other two methods.

Awarding the asset to one or more co-owners in return for compensation is the most common approach in practice. The court will award the entire property to the co-owner (or several of them) who expresses an interest, is able to pay out the others, and whose acquisition is consistent with the efficient use of the property.

The key criteria are in particular the size of the co-ownership share, the ability to pay compensation within a reasonable time, and the existing use of and investments in the property. The court also considers whether the co-owner carries on business in the property or has their residence there. Adequate compensation is usually determined based on the usual market value of the property at the given place and time, as established by an expert opinion, and differences between shares can be settled in cash.

Only if awarding is not possible either – typically where no co-owner is interested in the property or is able to pay the compensation – does the sale of the property by public auction and distribution of the proceeds among the co-owners come into consideration. In practice, this method is the least preferred because the auction outcome is difficult to predict and the price achieved may be lower than in a targeted market sale, especially for specific or less liquid properties.

At the same time, an auction means a loss of control over who becomes the new owner, which can be a problem for co-owners who conduct business in the property or live there. Court proceedings for the termination and settlement of co-ownership are a complex process that typically takes several years and requires active procedural management – from drafting the claim through motions for evidence to negotiating a possible settlement.

The attorneys at ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, assist clients not only with conducting the dispute, but also with ongoing analysis of when it is appropriate to consider an out-of-court agreement, what type of expert opinion to commission, and how to argue when choosing between awarding the asset and sale by auction.

Co-ownership of corporate real estate, financing, enforcement, and taxes

A mortgage lien typically encumbers the property as a whole, so banks require the consent and signature of all co-owners. If a minority owner refuses to sign the mortgage agreement, they can block refinancing or a loan for the development of the entire site. Prevention lies in a contractual undertaking by the co-owners to provide cooperation in financing under clearly defined conditions.

Enforcement against one of the owners affects only their share; the others will not lose their property. However, an enforcement auction may bring in a speculator. The other co-owners have the option to bid for the debtor’s share themselves at the auction (under certain conditions with a preferential right). ARROWS helps clients assess the economic rationale of such an investment.

Payment of financial compensation upon termination of co-ownership is exempt from personal income tax for individuals only if the holding-period time test is met (5 years for older acquisitions, 10 years for properties acquired from 1 January 2021, if they were not included in business assets). For companies, income from the settlement is always subject to corporate income tax. For legal entities, the transaction affects the balance sheet and banking covenants. ARROWS cooperates with tax advisers on these agreements and, within the ARROWS International network, also addresses cross-border tax aspects.

Preventive setup: how to properly “design” co-ownership of corporate real estate

Risks need to be minimised at the outset by creating an interconnected contractual matrix: agreements on the management of the jointly owned asset, shareholders’/stockholders’ agreements, and exit arrangements. If a shareholders’ agreement requires a qualified majority for the sale of assets, the wording of the co-ownership agreement must reflect that rule as well. Consistency across documents prevents deadlocks and increases the confidence of financing banks.

Given the limitation of the statutory pre-emptive right, it is crucial to agree a contractual pre-emptive right with a clear price-setting mechanism (e.g., a market valuation). Another strong tool is an agreement prohibiting termination of co-ownership (under Czech law, for a maximum of 10 years), which protects the stability of long-term investment projects against an unexpected exit request by one partner.

If the co-owners are foreign persons, rights in rem are governed by Czech law (the law of the place where the property is located), but corporate relationships and financing may be subject to foreign legal systems. ARROWS International coordinates these international projects and ensures that the documentation meets international standards and is clear for foreign funds and investors.

Final summary

Co-ownership of corporate real estate is a reality for many business projects—from family businesses through development joint ventures to investment structures involving multiple parties. The Czech Civil Code provides a robust framework for co-ownership by shares and sets out basic rules for use, management, decision-making and settlement of co-ownership, including the possibility of court intervention in the event of disagreements or the definitive termination of co-ownership. At the same time, the statutory regulation is only a minimum.

The real functionality and security of co-ownership relationships are determined primarily by specific contractual arrangements, the set-up of decision-making processes, and the quality of communication among the co-owners. For entrepreneurs, management and investors, three levels are key. The first is prevention: well-designed co-ownership structures, management and use agreements, contractual pre-emption rights and clearly defined rules for financing and investments significantly reduce the risk of future disputes and deadlocks.

The second is timely problem-solving: overuse of the property, non-payment of costs, blocking of decisions or the entry of an undesirable co-owner will not resolve themselves and, without professional guidance in negotiations, often lead to destructive disputes. The third level is choosing the right path in the event of deep disagreements: an out-of-court agreement, mediation, court regulation of relations under Section 1139 of the Czech Civil Code, or an action for termination and settlement of co-ownership.

Each option has legal, economic and tax consequences that need to be understood before a co-owner decides on it. If you do not want to risk mistakes in setting up co-ownership relationships, unnecessary delays in financing, undervaluation of the property at auction, or protracted court disputes, it is safer to entrust the preparation of documents and dispute resolution to professionals.

The attorneys at ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, have long specialised in co-ownership of corporate real estate, understand the legal as well as business and tax context, and are insured for professional liability up to CZK 400,000,000. In the event of an international element, thanks to the ARROWS International network, they can also coordinate cross-border aspects of transactions and disputes. If you need specific assistance with co-ownership of corporate real estate, you can contact ARROWS advokátní kancelář at any time by e-mail at office@arws.cz.

Frequently asked questions on co-ownership of corporate real estate

1. What is the difference between co-ownership by shares and the community property of spouses in relation to corporate real estate?
Co-ownership by shares means that each owner has a clearly defined ideal share in the property and decisions are made according to the size of these shares, whereas under the community property of spouses the property belongs to both spouses jointly without shares being determined. In corporate practice, this means a different decision-making method and the need to involve the other spouse in transfers, pledges or settlement; the attorneys at ARROWS advokátní kancelář will discuss the appropriate solution for your specific situation with you once you contact office@arws.cz.

2. Can a co-owner sell their share in corporate real estate without the consent of the others?
Generally yes, except for the statutory pre-emption right, which applies only in cases where the co-ownership arose through inheritance, acquisition for the event of death, or another legal fact that the co-owners could not influence, and only for a period of six months from the creation of the co-ownership. In practice, however, it is advisable to agree contractual pre-emption rights and other mechanisms to prevent an undesirable partner from entering; ARROWS advokátní kancelář can advise you at office@arws.cz on how to set these arrangements up correctly.

3. Do I always need the consent of all co-owners for a reconstruction or a pledge over the property?
For routine maintenance and repairs, a majority decision according to shares is sufficient. For significant interventions, such as a substantial improvement or deterioration of the thing or a change of its purpose, a two-thirds majority of votes is required. To encumber the property (e.g., with a pledge) or to remove such encumbrance, or for a substantial change of its purpose, the consent of all co-owners is then required. If you are not sure which category your intention falls into and what consents you need vis-à-vis the bank or the tenant, contact the attorneys at ARROWS advokátní kancelář at office@arws.cz.

4. What should you do if one co-owner does not pay costs and blocks any solution?
The first step is an attempt at an out-of-court agreement and clear communication; if that fails, you can recover from them their proportionate share of the costs and also use court regulation of relations or an action for termination and settlement of co-ownership. ARROWS advokátní kancelář can help you choose the right combination of these steps and a specific procedural strategy if you contact them at office@arws.cz.

5. How is the amount of compensation for a share determined when settling co-ownership?
It is usually based on the market value of the property determined by an expert report as of the date of the court’s decision or the conclusion of the agreement; differences between shares are settled in money. During negotiations, previous investments or specific arrangements may also be taken into account; the attorneys at ARROWS advokátní kancelář can assist you in setting fair compensation and commissioning an expert report after a consultation at office@arws.cz.

6. What risks does a court-ordered sale of real estate at a public auction entail?
The greatest risk is an uncertain outcome – the achieved price may be lower than the market value, and the co-owners lose control over who becomes the new owner. It is therefore advisable to consider an out-of-court agreement or another method of settlement in good time; after you contact office@arws.cz, the attorneys at ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, will review the risks of your specific case with you.

Disclaimer: The information contained in this article is for general informational purposes only and serves as a basic guide to the issue as of 2026. Although we strive for maximum accuracy, laws and their interpretation evolve over time. We are ARROWS Law Firm, a member of the Czech Bar Association (our supervisory authority), and for the maximum security of our clients, we are insured for professional liability with a limit of CZK 400,000,000. To verify the current wording of the regulations and their application to your specific situation, it is necessary to contact ARROWS Law Firm directly (office@arws.cz). We are not liable for any damages arising from the independent use of the information in this article without prior individual legal consultation.

Read also: