Your home

How to resolve common conflicts

What do you need to do when you want to sell out of or dissolve the union? In dispute resolution, resolution can be the only solution.

How to resolve common conflicts


Attorney Harald Ramm has been working for Hyttiviv since 1992, contributing both to the regular lawyer in the magazine and responding to questions from readers. In this column he is highlighting issues that all cabiners (and some homeowners) may encounter. The examples are derived from reality, while the names are fictional.

There may be many reasons why a unions want to withdraw from a union, such as the need to free up capital. A joint share will be low-sellable, so the simplest in such situations would be that the remaining unions buy the share. However, if the interest of the others is lukewarm, the only solution can be to dissolve the union.

Right to claim resolution

According to the law, each of the unions has the right to demand a union dissolved, without this requiring any form of majority decision. In such cases there will be a compulsory resolution. This is no nice end to what once was a nice coexistence. However, before reaching so far, a voluntary solution should be tried. After all, one must be circumvented in the future too.

Acquisition of co-ownership

“You must fix this in yourself. Now you’ve got the cabin and I can not bear more responsibility for it! “He was angry and disappointed, Finn Drog. Sixteen years ago, the daughters Svanhild, Gørhild and Gunhild, or the girls whom he called them, had transferred the cabin in association with an ideal third party each.

The first years after the takeover were far from unproblematic. The girls found a sensible use scheme, and in addition the cabin was in a very good condition and the cost of maintenance was equal to zero. In 2002, Svanhild separates himself and needs money to re-establish himself. The apartment she owns with her husband is borrowed and gives little equity for the purchase of new housing. The only asset she owns is the third of the cabin.


In connection with the divorce settlement she pays a fee for the cabin, and the estimated value is set at NOK 1,500,000. With her share of one third, this represented $ 500,000, which she, together with an acceptable loan, could use to buy new housing. Svanhild therefore addresses his sisters and offers them to buy her share for kr 250. 000 each.

But both Gunhild and Gørhild have even significant loans and do not have the opportunity to buy Svanhild. In his despair, Svanhild addresses himself to lawyer Gunnar Stram. She presents the problem and the first Tight asks is: “Have you created a union agreement?”

No Co-operation Agreement

Unfortunately, no such agreement was available, something Strong regretted: “It is my absolute advice that everyone agrees to create such an agreement. One thing is that you have a foundation that provides guidance when such situations arise. Another thing is that when you make such an arrangement one has to think carefully through different circumstances around the community. “

Svanhild had heard that there was a law on union. “That’s right,” said Stram, “but it’s a law that governs all types of unions and does not capture all the issues that apply to a cab, and unfortunately the law does not have any provisions that impose other unions to solve a associations. “

“But I can sell my share to others, can not I?” replied Svanhild. “Well, that’s right, but do you think anyone wants to pay $ 500,000 to acquire a third party of such a union?”, Answered Stram. “Although the share in principle has a value, it is hopelessly not negotiable. “

Poor climate

Strict believed that the best would nevertheless be to offer sisters to buy the share, but at a lower price. That way, Svanhild got money and the sisters got an opportunity to acquire the whole cabin at a favorable price.

“I therefore suggest that we offer them to buy your share for $ 300. 000, “said Stram, and agreed that he would write a letter to Gørhild and Gunhild and promote such an offer. In the letter, Stram wrote that the offer ran for one week from today. The short deadline was set to avoid too much discussion and long negotiations.

But none of the sisters took the trouble to answer, something Svanhild approached.

“Well, the climate is not the best and I do not think it’s particularly nice of your sisters to be so totally dismissive when after all, you’re in such a difficult situation” comforted Stram.

Compulsory dissolution


  • Allies who wish to withdraw from the union may allow the remaining unions to take over the share of a release sum, equivalent to, for example, 75 percent of the rate.
  • If the remaining unions do not want to take over the share, the union may be required to be dissolved. However, this must be the last resort.
  • A thorough contract is the best starting point for a good union. Take one point too much than one too little.
  • Agreement usage intervals. For example, allocate summer vacation in relation to how many cohesion it is.
  • Contract maintenance obligations, and preferably set up a maintenance fund that can cover ongoing expenses. Also agree on minor tasks such as lawn mowing and washing of the cabin.
  • Duties can be agreed one to two times per. year.
  • Maintenance decisions can be settled by simple majority, while investments should be decided by unanimity.

Strict believed there was reason to go a bit harder: “The United States Act has a provision that we can use. Because when the climate is so bad, you can demand the dissolution of the community. “

He referred to Section 15 of the Act, which states, among other things, “After notice with reasonable due time, the rights of unmarried persons have the right to have united opposition. If the item can not be shared without damage, he shall sell through the enforcement authorities in accordance with the enforcement order as far as they are concerned. Under the same conditions, one has the right to get a license. “

It was clear that the cabin had to be considered as a thing that could not be “shared without harm” and therefore the union had to be forced to rescind. That is, a request for a compulsory resolution must be sent to the street where the cabin is located.


“In most cases, the sale will be made by naming a” helper “”, “Stram”.

“In practice, it means that a real estate agent carries out the sale. The process thus has many similarities to ordinary sales. “Tight showed the provisions that the other unions have pre-emptive rights, but he stated that this only means they are entitled to enter the highest bid. “If there is a bid of NOK 1,500,000, Gørhild and Gunhild have the right to take over, but it must happen at this price. They get no discount “, stressed tight.

Tight would nevertheless give the two sisters one last chance and insisted that he should write a letter to them where the bid of $ 300,000 was maintained. “But I add that if they do not accept it, you see no alternative than to go to the court with a request for coercion resolution. “Svanhild thought it was a sensible solution, and Stram sent his letter.


Not even this time, Gørhild and Gunhild took his sister seriously and no reply came within the deadline. The next day, a petition went to court, which usually appointed a real estate agent as “aides”.

The lodge was announced and the bids ended at 1 750 000, but then there was resurrection at Gørhild and Gunhild. They took crying contact with the father, who had hitherto been out of conflict. But he did not want to contribute, and meant that the sisters had to figure out this self. The case ended with Gørhild and Gunhild taking up collateral safely in the cabin and buying out Svanhild for kr 400,000. If, however, they had thought about a little earlier in the process, they would let go of 100,000 less.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Adblock Detected

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker