Agenda and annual report: association’s appeal allowed, claim dismissed
Editorial summary
The claimant challenged meeting decisions on the grounds of agenda defects and flaws in the annual report. The association’s appeal succeeded: the expenditure fell within discussion of the financial plan, and accounting shortcomings did not automatically invalidate approval of the report.
Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 11 korteriühistu · 80170749
Participants and roles
- Claimant and appellant — XX
- Defendant and appellant — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 11 korteriühistu
The dispute and the court’s decision
The claimant XX challenged the decisions of Korteriühistu Kangelaste 11, now Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 11 korteriühistu, of 27 April 2010 on the report, financial plan and individual items of expenditure. The county court invalidated approval of the report and dismissed the remaining claims. Both sides appealed.
The circuit court found the information duty fulfilled. Evidence showed delivery of the plan and report, display of audit materials and an opportunity to obtain copies. The provisions applied did not require personal delivery of every document to each member. Missing source documents for some costs could raise questions about performance of the board’s duties but did not itself invalidate the meeting’s decision to approve the report.
Other disputed expenditure fell within the agenda items for discussing and adopting the financial plan. The court therefore did not treat those decisions as unexpected matters outside the agenda. Lack of support for the claimant’s proposal did not make the decisions invalid either.
The association’s appeal was allowed and the claimant’s dismissed. The judgment of 13 January 2012 was set aside in full and replaced with dismissal of the claim. The claimant bears costs in both instances.
Outcome of this decision
The association’s appeal was allowed and the claimant’s dismissed. The earlier judgment was set aside in full and the challenge to the meeting decisions dismissed; the claimant bears costs in both instances.