Association membership despite separate management of a building section

Individual XX sought recognition as a member of Tallinna mnt 34 Korteriühistu, now Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 34 korteriühistu. The association objected that owners in one section of the building had previously chosen another form of management and arranged maintenance separately. It relied on earlier owner decisions, its own financial commitments and unwillingness to assume obligations concerning the other section. On 25 November 2011 the county court recognised XX's membership and allocated costs to the association. The building stood on one immovable divided into apartment properties; membership followed from the law rather than separate consent by the general meeting. The association appealed both the membership finding and the use of non-contentious proceedings. The circuit court confirmed membership on 3 February 2012. Separate maintenance contracts and the earlier unwillingness of some owners to join did not exclude the statutory membership of all apartment owners on the immovable. XX had a legal interest in having that status established because the association denied it. The court agreed that the claim should have been dealt with under contentious procedure, but the wrong procedural track was not an independent ground for reversal: the association had been able to present objections, evidence and an appeal. Only a separate operative clause terminating the proceedings was removed as redundant after determination of the application. Membership was not reversed and the case was not remitted for a new hearing. Costs in both instances remained with the association; subsequent enforcement and appeals have not been verified.