Heating allocation: amendment to the articles not declared void

The claimant XX sought a declaration that the general meeting decision of KÜ Vana Loss, now Narva linn, Suur tn 8 korteriühistu, of 20 December 2012 was void. The amendment provided special heating charges for non-residential premises: meter readings plus a charge for indirect heat calculated using part of the floor area. The claimant considered this an unfair increase in other owners’ costs. The circuit court upheld dismissal of the claim. Voidness, meaning no legal effect from the outset, was assessed on the alleged ground of conflict with good morals. Harm to an individual owner’s interests alone did not establish that ground. The court considered the method to account for direct and indirect consumption, while the claimant’s evidence did not establish disproportion sufficient to make the decision contrary to good morals. The court distinguished that issue from possible unlawfulness in altering the heating system, which was outside the case. A breach of law likewise did not automatically mean voidness; no separate claim to invalidate the decision had been brought, and the time limit for doing so had expired. The case also did not decide whether the claimant could refuse particular invoices: a good-faith defence to collection would require separate assessment. The appeal was dismissed and the judgment of 28 November 2013 upheld. The claimant bears costs in both instances.