Default dismissal of a challenge to enforcement

Osaühing KOTKAS&KO brought an action against Puškini tn. 22 korteriühistu, now Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 22 korteriühistu, to declare enforcement inadmissible. The company relied on payment of an obligation determined in another case. The association responded after its extended deadline, so the response was treated as not filed; the company requested a default judgment. A late response did not guarantee success. The court examined whether the company’s own pleaded facts legally supported prohibition of enforcement. Objections to enforcing a judicial decision had to rest on circumstances arising after that decision became final; the original basis pleaded did not meet that condition. On 12 December 2011 the action was dismissed by default, with costs against the company. The court provided for lifting the interim enforcement stay when the judgment became final. It did not award the underlying debt anew. Confirmed subsequent development: on 25 April 2012 the circuit court upheld dismissal. Set-off first invoked on appeal did not alter the original basis of the action and could support a separate action. Both instances’ costs were allocated to the company. The outcome of any new action, present finality and actual enforcement have not been reverified.