Charging a "door-opening fee" to go home? Court: Unreasonable! Neighboring rights must be respected

[2] Compiled from: Shandong High Court
 
[2] In daily life, it is inevitable to come home late or leave early, but if you live in an old residential area, you may encounter a gated entrance guarded by a security guard. Sometimes, to get home, you have no choice but to knock on the door. However, a property owner in Changde, Hunan, was refused entry after returning late from a night shift, and the guard demanded a 10-yuan "door-opening fee" to let him in. Left with no alternative, he had to take the matter to court.

 
 

Case review
[3] At the beginning of 2021, Huang purchased a house that shared a courtyard with a bank. The residential area where Huang lived was originally an employee dormitory built by the bank. Due to its age, most of the current residents had obtained property rights through second-hand housing transactions. The area consisted of two buildings: one was the employee dormitory, and the other was the bank's business premises, with the bank's vault located on the first floor of the dormitory. This was a mixed-use residential and commercial area, and the security guards hired by the bank were only responsible for daytime duty. The bank could not force them to be obligated to open the door for residents in the middle of the night.

 
 

[4] On June 1 of this year, the bank issued a notice stating that the courtyard's entrance gate would be locked at night. In summer, the lock-up time was from 11:30 PM to 6:00 AM, and in winter, from 11:00 PM to 6:00 AM. After locking, residents needing to enter or exit the courtyard had to contact the guard to open the door. Each door opening cost 10 yuan, or a monthly subscription was available at 150 yuan, limited to one opening per day.
 
[5] In July, Huang filed a lawsuit with the Wuling District Court in Changde, requesting a judgment that the bank remove the obstruction, dismantle the iron gate in the passageway, immediately restore the right of Huang and his family members and vehicles to freely pass through the passageway to return home, and refund the 300 yuan in door-opening fees that Huang had already paid.
 
 
 [6] Article 291 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China
[1] An owner of immovable property shall provide necessary convenience to an adjacent owner who must use his land for passage or other purposes.
 

 
 

[1] Court Opinion
[2] Through mediation by the court, the defendant bank replaced the lock with a fingerprint lock and assisted the plaintiff Huang and his family members in registering their fingerprints. The cost of purchasing and installing the fingerprint lock was voluntarily borne by the defendant, and the plaintiff did not require the defendant to refund the door-opening fees already paid.
 
 
[1] The author's perspective
[3] In fact, the dispute in this case centered on whether the bank should take reasonable measures, such as removing the iron gate in the passageway and replacing it with a fingerprint lock, to provide necessary convenience for Huang's passage. The answer is certainly yes. In this case, the house purchased by Huang shared a courtyard with the bank, and the gate between Huang's house and the bank was the only passage for the resident to enter and exit. The bank's practice of locking the gate at night artificially created an obstacle for Huang's passage after work. According to the above legal provisions, the bank should take appropriate measures regarding the iron gate in the passageway to provide necessary convenience for Huang's normal passage needs.   
   
[4] It is worth noting that the neighboring relationship arising from passage refers to a situation where, due to geographical constraints, one party must use land owned or used by an adjacent party to obtain convenience such as passage. The term "must" in the above legal provision means that one party's exercise of rights is conditional on using the adjacent party's land; without such use, the party cannot exercise their rights, thereby affecting their normal production and life. "Provide necessary convenience" means that the owner of immovable property should create conditions for the adjacent owner to pass through their land, enabling the realization of their adjacent rights.