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

The recent Order No. 11557 of April 30, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers important clarifications regarding the burden of proof in the context of boundary settlement actions. This topic is of significant interest to all those who find themselves facing disputes concerning property boundaries, as it establishes fundamental principles for resolving such disputes.

Legal Context

In the specific case, the Court addressed the conflict between F. (G. G.) and D. (S. Z.), where the correct determination of the boundary line between their respective properties was under discussion. The Court of Appeal of Venice, tasked with ruling on the matter, had already expressed its judgment, but the case was subsequently brought before the Court of Cassation for further review.

Principles Established by the Court

In boundary settlement actions, both the plaintiff and the defendant are responsible for alleging and providing any means of proof suitable for identifying the exact boundary line, while the judge, entirely unbound by the principle "the plaintiff who does not prove is absolved," must determine the boundary based on the elements they deem most reliable, ultimately resorting to cadastral findings, which have a subsidiary value.

The above-cited maxim unequivocally clarifies that in boundary settlement 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 the party initiating legal action must prove the constitutive facts of their claim.

Practical Implications

These principles have several practical implications:

• Both parties must prepare adequately, gathering evidence that can support their position.
• The judge plays an active role in evaluating the evidence, being able to choose what they consider most credible and relevant.
• Cadastral maps, while usable, are considered a subsidiary element, implying that the judge may decide not to rely solely on them.

The decision of the Court of Cassation aligns with an already established body of case law, as demonstrated by the previous maxim No. 10062 of 2018, which had already set similar guidelines on the matter. This shows how the Court continues to maintain a consistent and rigorous stance on the issue of evidentiary burdens in boundary settlement proceedings.

Conclusions

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