Kerese 6: meeting decision on parking not declared void

Refusal to declare the parking decision void was upheld; land-use arrangements were not decided separately.

Tartu Ringkonnakohus dismissed XX’s appeal and upheld the refusal to declare the Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu meeting decision of 13 April 2016 void. Nullity would mean no legal effect from adoption; that specific demand was not granted. The meeting decided to organise car parking on the green area behind the building. The claimant considered this construction of a car park involving tree felling and concreting, requiring all owners’ consent. She also relied on the lack of the necessary quorum. The association objected that organising parking was ordinary use of the land around the building and could be decided by majority. The circuit court considered that the wording adopted was not yet a decision to build a car park and substantially alter the intended use of shared property. The claimant had not demonstrated grounds for nullity under the provisions on general meeting decisions. The court also stated that breach of co-owner consent rules does not itself make a meeting decision void. The circuit court nevertheless corrected one first-instance argument. A court may and must check whether a statutory prohibition making the decision void was breached; it cannot confine itself to the label given to the demand. In this case, however, that examination did not change the outcome. The claimant had not brought a demand against the other owners to determine arrangements for use of the shared land, including tree felling. The first-instance costs allocation was upheld, and appeal costs were imposed on the claimant. The county court will quantify them separately. The judgment concerns the specific meeting wording and ground of nullity raised; no separate demand on land-use arrangements was determined here.

Dismiss XX’s appeal and leave the Viru Maakohus judgment of 8 June 2018 unchanged. Retain the previous costs allocation; the claimant bears appeal costs, to be quantified by the county court.