Association debt claim remitted because proof and reasons were inadequate
Editorial summary
The circuit court set aside the debt award in full and remitted the case. This was not final dismissal of the association’s claim: the charges and the owner’s objections required fresh examination.
Narva linn, Koidula tn 7 korteriühistu · 80175570
Participants and roles
- KÜ Koidula Maja N — claimant
- XX — defendant, owner and appellant
The dispute and the court’s decision
KÜ Koidula Maja N claimed principal of 14,704.87 kroons and interest of 2397.18 kroons from XX. XX disputed the calculation, alleging repeated inclusion of paid sums, a court fee included as debt and unclear heating charges. On 21 December 2010 the county court awarded 17,102.05 kroons and further daily interest of 0.07% on principal. XX appealed.
The circuit court found substantial shortcomings in the reasons. The county court could not reject objections merely because the defendant had not proved them before the association established the facts underlying its claim. The association had to prove total costs for the relevant period and the basis of allocation, including floor areas where allocation was area-based. Issuing an invoice did not itself prove the amount due. After the association supplied evidence, the defendant had to be allowed to support the objections with evidence.
The judgment was set aside in full and the case remitted. The county court also had to clarify whether the debt was calculated as at 1 or 30 September 2009 and why it included a 750-kroon court fee. Costs were left for the fresh proceedings. The court did not finally establish that no debt existed; the later result has not been established and actual enforcement has not been reverified.
Outcome of this decision
The appeal was partly allowed: the entire award was set aside and the case remitted. The final debt and costs were not determined by this judgment.