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

[2] Compiled from: Shandong High Court
 
In daily life, it is inevitable that people sometimes leave early and return late. However, if you live in an older residential community, you may encounter access control guarded by a doorman, and sometimes you have no choice but to knock on the door just to get home. In Changde, Hunan, however, a homeowner was locked out after returning late from a night shift, and the doorman demanded a 10-yuan “door-opening fee” before opening the door. Left with no other option, the homeowner had to file a lawsuit in court.

 
 

Case review
In early 2021, Huang purchased a house and shared a courtyard with a bank. The residential community where Huang lives was originally built by the bank as staff dormitories through pooled funds. Due to its age, most of the current residents in the dormitories have acquired property rights through second-hand housing transactions. The community consists of two buildings: one is the staff dormitory, and the other is the bank’s business premises, with the bank’s vault located on the first floor of the staff dormitory. The community is a mixed commercial and residential area. The security guards hired by the bank are only responsible for daytime duty, and the bank cannot compel them to get up in the middle of the night to open the door for residents.

 
 

On June 1 of this year, the bank issued a notice stating that the gate of the internal passage would be locked at night. In summer, the gate is locked from 11:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., and in winter, from 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. After the gate is locked, residents of the compound must contact the gatekeeper to open it. A fee of 10 yuan is charged each time the gate is opened, or a monthly package is available at 150 yuan per month, with the gate allowed to be opened only once per day.
 
In July, Huang filed a lawsuit with the Wuling District Court in Changde City, requesting a judgment ordering the bank to remove the obstruction, dismantle the iron gate in the passage, and immediately restore the right of Huang and his family members to freely enter and exit the passage to their home by foot and vehicle, as well as to return the 300 yuan gate-opening fee 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.   
   
It is worth noting that an adjacent relationship arising from passage refers to a situation where, due to geographical constraints, one party must use the land owned or used by an adjacent party to obtain convenience such as passage. The term “must” in the aforementioned legal provisions means that one party’s exercise of rights is conditioned upon the use of the adjacent party’s land, and without such use, the party cannot exercise its rights, thereby affecting its normal production and daily life.   “Providing necessary convenience” means that the real property rights holder shall create conditions for the adjacent rights holder to pass through its land so that the adjacent right can be realized.