Võidu 10: claim dismissed because older demands were time-barred and calculations showed no debt

The court examined limitation and the association’s calculations and dismissed the claim: the older part was time-barred, and the tables did not show debt for the rest.

The court dismissed the apartment association Võidu 10’s debt and late-payment interest claim against two defendants XX. Limitation was applied to the older part of the claims; for the later period, the court found no debt on the dates examined according to the association’s tables. The association revised its calculation several times. One defendant argued that the principal had been paid, some claims were brought after limitation had expired, and payments exceeded charges during the remaining period. The second submitted no substantive response. The association submitted tables, but not the invoices themselves or information allowing the court to establish who made particular payments and when. The court found that claims for 1 May 2009 to 31 December 2011 had become time-barred before the application was filed in March 2015. The corresponding interest claims became time-barred together with the principal claim. For the later charges, the court examined payments and concluded that the association’s tables showed no debt either on 31 May 2015 or on 30 June 2016. Interest on this part was also found unjustified. The court stated that performance of a joint and several obligation by one debtor releases the others to the corresponding extent. No refund of an alleged overpayment was awarded to the defendants. The association was left to bear its own costs and ordered to bear the defendants’ costs. It was ordered to pay the state 348,24 euros for state legal aid within three months after the judgment entered into force. Actual payment of costs is not confirmed.

Dismiss the association’s claim against the two defendants XX. The association bears the costs; award the state 348,24 euros for legal aid, payable within three months after the judgment enters into force. No refund of overpayment to the defendants was ordered.