Management debt: parking dispute did not justify withholding payment

KÜ Punane Maja, now Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 33 korteriühistu, sought maintenance charges, water charges and late-payment interest from VETA-A Kaubamaja AS. A court-approved settlement from 2007 already governed the parties: the company contributed to maintenance but not common building repairs, undertaking repairs within its shop itself. The company argued that the tariff included excessive costs and was unsupported for later years. The circuit court upheld the calculation: the association used a reduced tariff for the company and credited previous payments. Administrative costs could form part of maintenance; the objections did not establish a breach of the settlement. The association was entitled to reduce its monetary claim. Parking restrictions did not justify withholding payment either. The company had not established a proper, due counterclaim sufficiently connected with the debt or the necessary conditions. A monetary claim for alleged loss was first specified on appeal and disregarded as a new argument. The court did not require a counterclaim action as the only possible defence. The appeal was dismissed and the judgment of 25 October 2012 upheld: 6,356.13 euros in principal and 2,543.60 euros in interest, totalling 8,899.73 euros. The company bears costs in both instances; no independent entitlement to parking spaces was established by this judgment.