Narva apartment associations Court decisions

The appeal court found sufficient evidence of the whole debt.

Puškini 45A Korteriühistu (now — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 45a korteriühistu). Puškini 45A Korteriühistu claimed management charges from Täisühing Mašuk. The company disputed water-circulation, stairwell-repair and paving charges, relying on a separate entrance, and sought to offset courtyard-road costs. The county court awarded the admitted 257.26 euros, refusing the remainder and the set-off. The association appealed the refusal of 162.57 euros and costs; refusal of set-off was not reviewed. The circuit court considered meeting decisions, repair documents and the summer water-circulation methodology sufficient. A separate entrance did not remove common-cost obligations. The appeal succeeded: the total debt is 419.83 euros, including the earlier award. Costs in both instances were imposed on the company without fixing their monetary amount in this judgment.

Appeal allowed; total debt 419.83 euros and costs in both instances borne by the company.

Initially, part of the charges and the amount of the proposed set-off were not proved. The later appeal assessed the principal-debt evidence differently and awarded the full principal; the set-off was not reconsidered.

Puškini 45A Korteriühistu (now — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 45a korteriühistu). Puškini 45A Korteriühistu sought 419.83 euros in principal and 6.34 euros in late-payment interest from Täisühing MAŠUK. The company admitted 257.26 euros, disputed water circulation charges and other items, and sought to set off 3 466.54 euros spent on a courtyard road. The court found invoices insufficient to prove all costs and their allocation. It accepted that the road works were necessary and that set-off was possible in principle, but the amount was supported only by the defendant’s calculation rather than cost documents. Later, on 16 October 2015, Tartu Ringkonnakohus reversed refusal of the remaining 162.57 euros in principal: total principal awarded became 419.83 euros instead of 257.26 euros. Täisühing MAŠUK bears costs in both instances. Refusal of the set-off was not appealed or reviewed.

Initially, the admitted principal of 257.26 euros was awarded, the remaining claim and set-off were refused, and each party bore its own costs. On 16 October 2015, Tartu Ringkonnakohus reversed refusal of the remaining 162.57 euros in principal: total principal awarded became 419.83 euros instead of 257.26 euros. Täisühing MAŠUK bears all costs in both instances. Refusal of the set-off was not appealed or reviewed; this change did not award additional late-payment interest.

The court added reasons to its earlier refusal to award Harjaks Inkasso OÜ money against two defendants XX. It found payment of the debt to the association proved.

Harjaks Inkasso OÜ, which had acquired a claim from the apartment association Nartall 18, sought to recover 1 306,52 euros jointly and severally from two owners: 722,44 euros in principal and 584,08 euros in late-payment interest, together with further interest of 0,07% per day from 1 August 2013, capped at the principal. One defendant disputed the calculation and submitted invoices and payment certificates. The second did not respond to the claim. The court refused to enter a default judgment solely against the second defendant: in this dispute, the existence and amount of the common debt had to be determined jointly for both. The court interpreted the first defendant’s written acknowledgement as confirming an existing debt rather than creating a new independent obligation. The debtor could therefore challenge it without a separate counterclaim. The court found the assignment to the debt collector proved, but that did not exclude objections available against the previous creditor. The claimant’s calculation differed from the association’s invoices. The court found it proved that the debt had been paid by 13 June 2014. It did not accept in full another certificate stating there had been no debt throughout the period since 2010, because other documents confirmed the earlier debt. Nevertheless, the particular claim and interest sought could not be granted. The claim had already been dismissed in a short judgment on 23 October 2014. After the claimant announced an intention to appeal, the court added a factual description and reasons while maintaining full dismissal. Costs were left to the debt collector. The court corrected the value of the claim from 1 444,88 euros to 1 491,10 euros; this is a procedural valuation, not an award of money.

Supplement the judgment of 23 October 2014 with a factual description and reasons. Dismiss Harjaks Inkasso OÜ’s claim against the two defendants for joint and several debt and late-payment interest. Leave costs to the claimant; correct the claim value to 1 491,10 euros.

Claimant XX sought a declaration of nullity and invalidation of the apartment association Narva Sõbralik meeting decisions of 06.05.2010, relying primarily on the failure to provide documents two weeks before discussion. The court considered XX’s appeal against Viru Maakohus’s dismissal judgment of 16.05.2011.

Claimant XX challenged decisions of the apartment association Narva Sõbralik (now – Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 2a korteriühistu) general meeting of 6 May 2010, seeking a declaration that they were void from adoption or an order invalidating them. The dispute concerned advance access to the management plan, report and balance sheet. The claimant said the necessary documents had not been provided two weeks before the meeting. The association objected that the convening procedure had been followed, documents had been sent, and breach of the duty to inform did not by itself prevent the meeting from taking place. Viru Maakohus dismissed the claim on 16 May 2011. The first-instance court acknowledged that the period for examining documents had been breached but considered this insufficient to grant the claim. Claimant XX appealed for the judgment to be set aside. The circuit court agreed with the assessment of the evidence that documents had been provided late, but rejected the legal conclusion that this had no consequences. The management plan and report were handed over only three days before discussion; provision of the balance sheet had not been established. Under the rules then applied, advance access had to allow association members reasonable time to assess important management matters. That provision did not, however, require the audit committee’s report to be sent as well. The appeal was allowed in part. The court set aside the dismissal concerning approval of the 2009 report, the 2010 budget, and the 2010 repair work and repair fund contribution rate, and itself invalidated these three decisions. Dismissal of the challenge to the fourth decision, on how received payments were accounted for, remained unchanged: the court found no connection with the established breach. Costs at both levels were allocated 25% to claimant XX and 75% to the association; the association was also ordered to pay 50 euros in court fees to the state. The result invalidates specific decisions; it does not declare every decision of the meeting void from the outset.

Allow the appeal in part. Set aside the first-instance dismissal of the challenge to decisions under items 1–3 of the 06.05.2010 meeting and give a new judgment in that part: invalidate approval of the 2009 report, the 2010 budget, and the 2010 repair work and repair fund contribution rate. Leave the rest unchanged. First-instance and appeal costs: 25% borne by claimant XX and 75% by the apartment association Narva Sõbralik. Order the association to pay 50 euros in court fees to the state within 15 days after the judgment becomes final.