Skip to decisions
Žuk — ANTON и JELENA

Narva apartment associations Court decisions

The collection is growing. We explain decisions in accessible language. Browsing by subject helps readers study building management practice, explore similar situations and prevent conflicts.

Materials for studying practice. An editorial summary does not replace an individual legal assessment or promise a dispute outcome.

Subjects and subtopics

A subject describes the dispute; it does not establish a violation.

Additional parameters

Reset all
Case 2-24-15880Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 17 korteriühistu · 80170377

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesObligations of multiple ownersHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairs

How it started · editorial summary

The court checked the basis of charges and limited the recovery period.

· Court orderViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-24-15880/39Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Proof of charges and joint and several recovery

Court order · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 17 korteriühistu · 80170377

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 17 korteriühistu; three persons concerned XX — jointly and severally liable owners; association representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

The court checked the basis of charges and limited the recovery period.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 17 korteriühistu sought joint and several payment from three persons XX for services, repair-fund contributions, gas-equipment maintenance and heating. This is one common sum, not separate full recovery from each. The court checked the claim despite incomplete responses. Meeting decisions, a management plan, contracts and supplier invoices supported the charges; bills sent to the owner alone are insufficient. Payments were credited. Debt for 1 June 2023–30 April 2025 was proved; debt from May 2025 was not awarded. The application was allowed in part. Of 850 euros sought for legal costs, 300 euros were accepted for proved representative activities; with a 50-euro fee, 350 euros were awarded jointly and severally. Duplicate documents were removed from the file.

Outcome of this decision

Proven debt and 350 euros in costs awarded jointly and severally; later debt not awarded.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Allow the application of Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 17 korteriühistu in part.
First instance
Case 2-22-105181Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 24 korteriühistu · 80175647

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayObligations of multiple owners

How it started · editorial summary

Two owners XX must pay debt and interest jointly and severally. Only a 65 euro fee was awarded as the association’s costs; consultant costs were refused.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-105181/13Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 24: debt awarded against two owners, consultant costs not reimbursed

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 24 korteriühistu · 80175647

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 24 korteriühistu; two interested persons XX — joint owners; association’s representative XX — management board member

How it started · editorial summary

Two owners XX must pay debt and interest jointly and severally. Only a 65 euro fee was awarded as the association’s costs; consultant costs were refused.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court awarded the apartment association Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 24 debt and interest against two joint owners XX. They agreed to the demand at the hearing, but the court did not reimburse the association’s requested application preparation and consultation costs. The association sought principal, accrued interest and further interest of 0,022% per day. The owners sent no written objections and confirmed agreement at the hearing. The court examined the application on its merits, checking ownership, articles, invoices and calculation. No settlement was approved in the act. The court found the duty to pay maintenance and services proved. Because the apartment was jointly owned, recovery was ordered jointly and severally: the common amount may be sought from either debtor without recovering the full sum repeatedly from each. The association sought 175 euros for legal assistance. The court found that it had no contractual procedural representative: a board member filed the application and attended the hearing. Consultation and document preparation by companies did not themselves become costs of such a representative. Nor did the court accept the cost of a consultant at the hearing as reimbursable. The ruling of 2 June 2022 awarded principal and accrued interest jointly and severally, plus further interest of 0,022% per day on principal until performance. Only a 65 euro fee was awarded as costs. Subsequent payment is not confirmed.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the application. Award principal, accrued interest and further interest of 0,022% per day on principal until payment against two interested persons XX jointly and severally. Allocate costs to them and award a 65 euro fee jointly and severally.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Grant the application.
First instance
Case 2-20-7413Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu · 80121083

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesObligations of multiple ownersRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairs

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought charges jointly and severally from two owners. Only the proved repair-fund contributions were awarded. The appeal court later increased that part to include December 2020; the remaining dismissal for lack of proof was retained.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-20-7413/45Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Co-owners’ debt: only repair-fund contributions were proved

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu · 80121083

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu; Person concerned I, owner — XX; Person concerned II, owner — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought charges jointly and severally from two owners. Only the proved repair-fund contributions were awarded. The appeal court later increased that part to include December 2020; the remaining dismissal for lack of proof was retained.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu sought debt jointly and severally from two owners, XX. They challenged the amount charged, the floor area used and receipt of invoices. One owner also relied on the condition of a partition wall and alleged failures by the association. The court repeatedly asked the association to explain its calculation and supply supplier records. The first-instance court rejected the contention that invoices had not been received and did not treat the condition of the premises as an independent basis for avoiding every charge in this dispute. However, recovery still required proof of costs and their allocation. The association’s own invoices and accounting table did not fully establish these matters. Supplier-liability records and the basis of many tariffs were not provided. The first-instance court found only the repair-fund contributions proved and awarded them jointly and severally. The remaining claims were rejected for lack of proof. On 4 February 2022, Tartu Ringkonnakohus increased the repair-fund award to include December 2020, so that part covers the whole of 2020. The remaining dismissal was retained. Each participant bears their own costs in both instances.

Outcome of this decision

The joint and several award was limited to proved repair-fund contributions. On 4 February 2022, Tartu Ringkonnakohus increased it to include December 2020 and retained dismissal of the other claims for lack of proof. Each participant bears their own costs in both instances.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Grant the application of Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu in part. […] Dismiss the remainder of the application for lack of proof.
First instance
Case 2-19-2415Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kalda tn 4 korteriühistu · 80338859

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsObligations of multiple ownersLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

How it started · editorial summary

The court required clear allocation of the demand between two co-owners and justification of late-payment interest.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-19-2415/3Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kalda 4: application for debt against two co-owners refused admission

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kalda tn 4 korteriühistu · 80338859

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant – Narva linn, Kalda tn 4 korteriühistu; Named debtors – co-owners XX and XX

How it started · editorial summary

The court required clear allocation of the demand between two co-owners and justification of late-payment interest.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court refused to accept the association’s application because defects were not remedied. Narva linn, Kalda tn 4 korteriühistu sought utility arrears from XX and XX. The apartment belonged to two persons as co-owners in shares. Viru Maakohus required clarification of the demand, but the defects were not remedied in time. The court stated that the application must make each participant’s liability clear. In particular, the association had not explained whether it sought each person’s share of the debt or considered either person liable for the whole amount. The latter means joint and several liability and requires a legal basis to be stated. The court found that the materials did not justify an award of the total against both as joint and several debtors. The late-payment interest calculation and accrual period were also unclear. The court could not supplement or change the subject matter on the applicant’s behalf. The application was refused and returned to the association with attachments. All litigation costs were left with the association. It was informed of the right to request a fee refund separately. This ruling does not determine the existence of utility debt on the merits or establish each co-owner’s final monetary obligations. Its reason is an unclear demand that the association did not clarify after the court’s directions.

Outcome of this decision

Refuse to accept the application; return the papers to the association. The applicant bears costs. A court fee refund may be sought by separate application.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. Narva linn, Kalda tn 4 korteriühistu shall bear the litigation costs.
First instance
Case 2-17-9837Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Turu tn 3 korteriühistu · 80228912

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayObligations of multiple owners

How it started · editorial summary

The court did not examine the debt on its merits: under the legal assistance treaty applied, it lacked jurisdiction to resolve the dispute against these defendants.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-9837/11Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Turu tn 3: debt claim left without examination for lack of Estonian court jurisdiction

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Turu tn 3 korteriühistu · 80228912

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant – apartment association; defendants – three owners XX; association representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

The court did not examine the debt on its merits: under the legal assistance treaty applied, it lacked jurisdiction to resolve the dispute against these defendants.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court left the claim by Narva linn, Turu tn 3 korteriühistu, also called NARTUR-3, against three owners XX without examination. It considered that it had no power to decide the case under the international jurisdiction rules applied. The debt itself was not examined on its merits. The association sought utility arrears and late-payment interest jointly and severally. Such an award would mean a shared obligation, rather than a separate full amount from each defendant. After unsuccessful delivery to the apartment address, the court investigated where the defendants lived. On the information received and the court’s findings, they lived in Russia and were Russian citizens. The court sent requests for consent to hearing the dispute in Estonia. The requests were received, but none supplied written consent. Applying the Estonian-Russian legal assistance treaty then in force, the court linked jurisdiction to the defendants’ residence or the parties’ written consent. Absence of that consent led it to leave the claim without examination. The court explained the possibility of bringing the same demand again; it did not declare that the debt was absent. Costs were left with the association, with no specific amounts reimbursable to other participants. The association was informed of its right to request a refund of the 125-euro court fee paid; this ruling did not itself order a refund.

Outcome of this decision

Leave the association’s claim against three defendants XX without examination. The association bears costs; no amounts are reimbursable to other participants.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Korteriühistu NARTUR -3 shall bear the litigation costs. There are no reimbursable litigation costs in the case.
First instance
Case 2-17-110027Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 42 korteriühistu · 80054903

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsObligations of multiple owners

How it started · editorial summary

The court ended the case after the association waived its claim because the debt had been paid. It awarded 137,50 euros* in costs jointly and severally against two defendants.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-110027/11Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Association waived its claim after debt payment; court awarded part of the costs

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Tallinna mnt 42 Korteriühistu · 80054903

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant – apartment association; two defendants XX – joint owners; association representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

The court ended the case after the association waived its claim because the debt had been paid. It awarded 137,50 euros* in costs jointly and severally against two defendants.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court accepted the apartment association Tallinna mnt 42’s waiver of its claim against two defendants XX and terminated proceedings. The waiver followed payment of the claimed debt after the association went to court. The defendants did not object. The court found the waiver permissible and explained that the same claim against the same defendants on the same grounds could not be brought again. As payment after filing caused the waiver, litigation costs were imposed on the defendants. They are jointly and severally liable: the association may seek the awarded sum from both together or either one within the overall total. The court awarded the association 137,50 euros*, half the fee paid for the payment order application and transition to ordinary civil proceedings. The other costs claimed were not considered necessary and justified. In particular, the association participated without a contractual representative, so expenses for drafting the claim, consultation and signing the agreement were not accepted; bank charges and separate payment order costs were also not awarded. The court fee refund question was left for a separate ruling after this ruling becomes final. The ruling itself does not confirm payment of the awarded litigation costs.

Outcome of this decision

Terminate proceedings following waiver of the claim. Award 137,50 euros* in litigation costs jointly and severally against the defendants; the court fee refund is to be decided separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
4. The court will decide the refund of litigation costs by a separate ruling after the court ruling becomes final.
First instance
Case 2-17-1783Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, V. Gerassimovi tn 4 korteriühistu · 80170236

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayObligations of multiple owners

How it started · editorial summary

Each defendant was assigned separate debt, interest and costs amounts; no joint and several recovery of the entire amount from either was ordered.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-1783/8Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Gerassimovi 4: different shares of debt and interest awarded against two defendants by default

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Korteriühistu Gerassimovi 4 Narva · 80170236

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — Korteriühistu Gerassimovi 4 Narva; Defendants — two co-owners XX

How it started · editorial summary

Each defendant was assigned separate debt, interest and costs amounts; no joint and several recovery of the entire amount from either was ordered.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court granted the apartment association Gerassimovi 4 Narva’s claim against two co-owners XX by default. Separate principal and accrued interest amounts were set for each according to ownership shares; further interest of 0,07% per day was awarded on each unpaid principal until payment. One defendant received the documents against signature; the other received them by placement in a mailbox. They were allowed 14 days to respond with a warning of a default judgment, but neither responded in time. The monetary obligations and state fee were assigned separately to each defendant, rather than jointly and severally. The text contains no detailed examination of individual charges. The judgment is immediately enforceable but does not confirm actual receipt of money.

Outcome of this decision

Award principal, accrued interest and a fee separately against each defendant XX. Further interest of 0,07% per day runs on the corresponding unpaid principal until payment. No joint and several recovery of the entire amount from either defendant was ordered. The judgment is immediately enforceable.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
6. The judgment is immediately enforceable.
First instance
Case 2-16-17285Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Soldina tn 6 korteriühistu · 80175334

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayBills and justification of chargesObligations of multiple owners

How it started · editorial summary

The association did not clarify the defendants’ shares, the method of recovery or the debt calculation after the court requested it.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-17285/3Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Tiimani 6: claim not accepted for proceedings because allocation of debt between co-owners was unclear

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Tiimani 6 · 80175334

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — KÜ Tiimani 6; Two defendants XX — co-owners; Association’s representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association did not clarify the defendants’ shares, the method of recovery or the debt calculation after the court requested it.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court refused to accept for proceedings the apartment association Tiimani 6’s claim against two co-owners XX and ordered the application and attachments returned. The association did not clarify the claim and calculation within the time allowed. The court did not decide the existence of the debt on its merits. The association alleged utility debt with late-payment interest totalling 575,69 euros. The court stated that the application did not show the defendants’ ownership shares or how the association sought recovery: a common amount from either of them jointly and severally, or a specified part from each. The composition of the principal, the interest calculation and the charging period were also not explained. The court required the defects to be remedied within 20 days of service of the ruling. The association’s representative received it personally on 6 December 2016, but the association did not respond. The court considered that, without clarification of the basis of liability and allocation of the obligation, the requested result could not be achieved in the manner sought. Costs were left to the association; no reimbursement was ordered for the defendants. The association may separately request a refund of the 125 euro fee paid. This ruling does not itself order that refund.

Outcome of this decision

Refuse to accept for proceedings the claim and return the application and attachments to the association. The association bears the costs; no reimbursement was ordered for the defendants. Refund of the 125 euro fee may be sought by a separate application.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Leave procedural costs to KÜ Tiimani 6. There are no procedural costs reimbursable to the defendants.
First instance
Case 2-16-16281Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 18 korteriühistu · 80175147

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsObligations of multiple owners

How it started · editorial summary

Six defendants did not respond to the claim; the court awarded their common joint and several debt by default and decided costs separately.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-16281/3Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kangelaste 18: common debt and fee awarded against six defendants by default

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Korteriühistu Kangelaste 18 Narva · 80175147

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — Korteriühistu Kangelaste 18 Narva; Six defendants XX — joint owners; Association’s statutory representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

Six defendants did not respond to the claim; the court awarded their common joint and several debt by default and decided costs separately.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court granted the apartment association Kangelaste 18 Narva’s claim against six defendants XX by default. Debt and a 400 euro state fee were awarded against them jointly and severally. The common amount can be sought from any debtor, but the full amount cannot be collected twice. The association alleged that the defendants jointly owned an apartment and were not properly paying for building maintenance and utilities. It had not charged late-payment interest on this principal debt. The claim documents were duly served; the court allowed 14 days to respond and warned of a possible default judgment. The defendants did not respond. The court treated the association’s factual assertions as admitted under the default procedure rules and granted the claim. Reimbursement of 43 euros in legal costs was refused: the association acted through its statutory representative and had no contractual representative in the case. Interest was awarded on unpaid court costs from entry into force until payment: the European Central Bank’s main refinancing operations rate applicable for each half-year plus eight percentage points per year. This is a separate consequence of late payment of costs, not interest on utility debt. The judgment is immediately enforceable but does not confirm payment.

Outcome of this decision

Award debt and a 400 euro state fee against the six defendants XX jointly and severally. Refuse 43 euros in legal costs. Unpaid costs carry interest from entry into force at the stated annual ECB rate plus eight percentage points. The judgment is immediately enforceable.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
7. The judgment is immediately enforceable.
First instance
Case 2-16-10912Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Madise tn 7, Madise tn 9 korteriühistu · 80180772

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayObligations of multiple owners

How it started · editorial summary

The defendants did not attend the hearing; the court examined the reasons for absence and granted the claim by default.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-10912/18Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Grafovi 7,9: court awarded debt and late-payment interest by default after defendants failed to attend

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KORTERIÜHISTU GRAFOVI-7,9 · 80180772

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – KORTERIÜHISTU GRAFOVI-7,9; Two defendants XX – joint owners; Association’s legal representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

The defendants did not attend the hearing; the court examined the reasons for absence and granted the claim by default.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court granted the apartment association GRAFOVI-7,9’s claim against two defendants XX by default. Arrears with late-payment interest and a 175-euro court fee were awarded jointly and severally. This is a shared obligation: the association may seek the awarded amount from either debtor but may not collect the full amount twice. The association alleged that the defendants jointly owned an apartment and had partly failed to pay building maintenance and utility charges. The defendants did not attend the hearing on 4 November 2016, and the association requested a default judgment. The court checked service of the summonses, the warning about non-attendance and the documents provided about its causes. One defendant sought an adjournment, but the court refused: it considered an objective inability to participate unproved. It also did not find the other defendant’s reason for absence sufficient. One defendant supplied no substantive objections to the claim; the other did not respond to it. The court found no obstacle to proceeding by default, treated the association’s factual allegations as admitted and granted the claim as legally well-founded. The judgment is immediately enforceable. It does not confirm actual payment.

Outcome of this decision

Award arrears with late-payment interest and a 175-euro court fee jointly and severally against the two defendants XX. The judgment is immediately enforceable.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
5. The judgment is immediately enforceable.
First instance
Case 2-15-105517Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 10 korteriühistu · 80183397

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayBills and justification of chargesPayment accounting and set-offLimitation of claimsObligations of multiple owners

How it started · editorial summary

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.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-105517/55Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

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

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Võidu 10 · 80183397

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — KÜ Võidu 10; Two defendants XX; Participants’ representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

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 dispute and the court’s decision

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.

Outcome of this decision

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.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
4. Leave the claimant’s procedural costs entirely to the claimant.
First instance
Case 2-15-3203Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 38a korteriühistu · 80175953

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsObligations of multiple owners

How it started · editorial summary

A second judgment on joint and several liability does not double the common debt.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-15-3203/23Read act

Separate act page

Default judgment awarding a debt against one defendant

Judgment · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

KÜ Kreenholmi 38A · 80175953

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Association — claimant; XX — defendant against whom the debt was awarded; XX — other defendants not covered by this operative part

How it started · editorial summary

The short operative part concerns one defendant. A preserved subsequent judgment in the same case identifies the co-owners’ apartment and utility charges and imposes the same obligation jointly and severally on another defendant.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Kreenholmi 38A (now — Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 38a korteriühistu). KÜ Kreenholmi 38A brought a debt claim against several defendants XX. This judgment grants it against only one of them. It gives no description or legal reasons for the principal claim, expressly relying on the possibility of issuing a default judgment without those parts. The preserved subsequent judgment in the same case, dated 5 July 2016, clarifies that the dispute concerned co-owners’ apartment and utility charges for 2012 through January 2015. The same obligation was later imposed jointly and severally on another defendant, without doubling the debt or state fee. These judgments do not establish payment.

Outcome of this decision

The debt and fee were awarded against one defendant XX. A separate legal service for preparing the claim was not reimbursed because the court did not treat it as a cost of contractual representation in the proceedings. The judgment is immediately enforceable; it does not establish payment. The judgment of 5 July 2016 imposed the same debt and state-fee obligation jointly and severally on another defendant; it is not a second independent award of the same sum.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
The default judgment is immediately enforceable (TsMS § 467(1), § 468(1)(2)).
First instance
· JudgmentViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-15-3203/43Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Default judgment against another jointly and severally liable debtor

Judgment · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

KÜ Kreenholmi 38A · 80175953

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Association — claimant; XX — defendant subject to this default judgment; XX — another jointly and severally liable debtor under the earlier judgment

How it started · editorial summary

A second judgment on joint and several liability does not double the common debt.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Kreenholmi 38A (now — Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 38a korteriühistu). KÜ Kreenholmi 38A claimed apartment and utility charges against several co-owners XX. The debt had already been awarded against one of them. This judgment concerns another defendant XX who received the claim personally but did not respond. The court found the claim legally justified and emphasised joint and several liability: the earlier award does not create a separate additional debt.

Outcome of this decision

The claim against this defendant was granted by default. The debt and fee reimbursement are joint and several with the earlier awards. The cost of a legal service for preparing the claim was refused. The judgment is immediately enforceable, but payment is not established.

A checked extract in this language is not yet available.

First instance