Tallinna mnt 42: heating charges, rates and clarification of claims

A majority resolution does not replace all owners’ agreement on a different allocation of expenses.

KÜ Tallinna mnt 42 (now — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 42 korteriühistu). Owner XX disputed maintenance and heating charges with KÜ Tallinna mnt 42. The association relied on meeting resolutions imposing an additional charge for each individual room with altered heating equal to 50% of the apartment’s total heating cost and setting the area used for charging. The owner sought recalculation or a declaration that no debt existed. The first-instance court dismissed the claim, relying in part on unchallenged meeting resolutions. The appellate court reversed and remitted. After repeated amendments, it remained unclear which claims the first-instance court had decided. The court should have discussed the available legal protection and explained that compulsory recalculation as formulated had no independent substantive basis; a declaration of no debt was possible. Allocating common expenses otherwise than in proportion to ownership shares requires all owners’ consent. A meeting resolution without unanimity does not replace that agreement; failure to challenge it in time did not resolve this issue. Evidence and the existence of debt must be examined on rehearing. The appeal was allowed in part, with costs to be allocated by the first-instance court according to the final outcome.

The judgment was reversed and the case remitted to clarify the claims and examine the debt; no specific recalculation was ordered.