Order No. 11557 of 2024: The Burden of Proof in Boundary Disputes

The recent order No. 11557 of April 30, 2024, from the Court of Cassation provides important clarifications regarding the burden of proof in the context of boundary adjustment actions. This issue is of significant interest to all those facing disputes related to property boundaries, as it establishes fundamental principles for resolving such disputes.

The Legal Context

In this specific case, the Court addressed the conflict between F. (G. G.) and D. (S. Z.), concerning the correct determination of the boundary line between their respective properties. The Court of Appeal of Venice, called to rule on the matter, had already expressed its judgment, but the case was subsequently brought before the Cassation for further examination.

Principles Established by the Court

In boundary adjustment actions, both the plaintiff and the defendant bear the burden of alleging and providing any means of proof suitable for identifying the exact boundary line, while the judge, completely unbound by the principle "actore non probante reus absolvitur", must determine the boundary in relation to the elements that seem most reliable, ultimately resorting to cadastral results, which hold subsidiary value.

The aforementioned maxim unequivocally clarifies that in boundary adjustment proceedings, both parties have an active responsibility to provide evidence to support their claims regarding the boundary line. This principle is particularly significant as it contrasts with the general rule that those who bring a lawsuit must prove the constitutive facts of their claim.

Practical Implications

These principles have several practical implications:

  • Both parties must adequately prepare by gathering evidence that can support their position.
  • The judge has an active role in evaluating the evidence, being able to choose those that he or she considers most credible and relevant.
  • Cadastral maps, while usable, are considered a subsidiary element, which implies that the judge may decide not to rely solely on them.

The decision of the Court of Cassation fits within an already established jurisprudential context, as demonstrated by the previous maxim No. 10062 of 2018, which had already established similar guidelines in this matter. This demonstrates how the Court continues to maintain a consistent and rigorous stance on the issue of evidentiary burdens in boundary adjustments.

Conclusions

In conclusion, order No. 11557 of 2024 represents an important step forward in clarifying the burden of proof in boundary adjustment proceedings. It emphasizes the necessity for both parties to be diligent in gathering evidence and confirms the crucial role of the judge in determining material truth based on evidence that can truly identify the boundary line. This jurisprudential orientation not only protects property rights but also promotes a fairer and more just resolution of boundary disputes.

Bianucci Law Firm