A case study on the interruption of the prescription deadline in a property rights dispute between Roger and Albert, involving damage caused by pine trees.
Extract
[...] The personal action aims to protect a personal right. In this case, Roger has brought an action before the judicial court in order to protect his property right as the pine trees of Albert are causing him harm: the pine needles and pine cones are clogging his fish pond, thus causing water damage. Therefore, Roger's action is a personal action, prescribing within 5 years. The burden of proof of the starting point of the prescription period lies with the one who invokes the end of the non-receivable period. [...]
[...] The interruption will have the effect of erasing the acquired prescription deadline, thus running a new 5-year deadline (Article 2231 of the Civil Code). In this case, Roger sent a LRAR to Albert, who did not respond, he thus considers that his absence of response is equivalent to a recognition. However, the debtor's recognition must result from an unequivocal fact, and not from an absence of response. Therefore, Albert is not considered to have recognized Roger's right by his absence of response. Thus, Roger's action is prescribed due to the 5-year delay, and this despite his LRAR and Albert's absence of response. [...]
[...] Roger and Albert had a discussion to bring up the problem in April 2014. Roger introduced his action on December after a LRAR on November 2016. It is clear that the starting point of the deadline will be the date of the discussion, namely April 2014. The delay between the discussion of the two men and the introduction of the action before the court exceeds 5 years by a few months. However, Roger sent a LRAR to Albert instructing him to prune his spruces, dated November 2016. [...]
