Appeal court upheld the refusal to declare a new heating payment arrangement void

Claimant XX did not obtain a declaration that the apartment association VANA LOSS decision on heating cost allocation was void. The appeal upheld the first-instance result while changing the legal reasoning.

The claimant challenged item 2 of the meeting decision of 22 August 2012, which changed the rules in the articles of association for allocating utility expenses, including heating. The claimant argued that the new arrangement unjustifiably increased charges for premises fully connected to central heating and favoured another owner. The association opposed the claim and also relied on a later meeting decision. The first-instance court dismissed the claim, but applied rules on invalidating a decision without examining the arguments about conflict with good morals and good faith on their merits. The appeal court noted that the claimant had specifically sought a declaration of nullity: absence of legal effect from adoption. Subsequent confirmation of the decision did not itself remove the right to rely on nullity, and the voting majority was not in dispute. The appeal court examined the grounds raised but did not find them established. The rules in force allowed the articles to allocate costs differently from a floor-area calculation. Higher charges for some owners did not in themselves mean a conflict with good morals. In this case, the court took account of the fact that the non-residential premises were used as a shop and did not require the same temperature as a home. The alleged omission of the claimant’s objections from the minutes was likewise not considered a ground for nullity. The court agreed that the request to join other owners had not been properly determined, but found that this had not affected the result: a judgment in such a dispute applies to association members regardless of their participation in proceedings. The appeal was dismissed. The operative part of the first judgment was upheld and costs at both levels were imposed on the claimant. Another judgment concerning the meeting of 20 December 2012 was dealt with separately and, according to this source, was already final when this case was considered.

Dismiss claimant XX’s appeal and uphold the operative part of the Viru Maakohus judgment of 9 October 2013, changing its legal reasoning in part. The claimant must bear costs at both levels.