Kangelaste 3: default judgment supplemented with reasons concerning the meeting notice

The court supplied reasons for the default judgment: defective convening sufficed to render the decisions void, so no separate assessment of voting was needed.

XX and OÜ Rosehill sought a declaration that Korteriühistu Kangelaste 3’s meeting decisions were void from the outset. The association did not respond within the time allowed after service of the claim. The court had previously granted the claim by a default judgment without a factual account or reasons. After the association indicated an intention to file a kaja application to reopen the case, the court supplied those missing parts. The supplementary judgment preserves the declaration that all decisions of the meeting of 16 November 2011 are void. The court relied on defective convening: the claimants alleged that unauthorised people called the meeting and that notice was given only 6 days beforehand rather than the 15 days required by the articles. With no timely response, the court treated those factual allegations as admitted by the association. It did not separately assess the allegation that one owner received two votes. The convening defect already sufficed to invalidate all decisions. The judgment therefore does not contain a separate finding that voting was unlawful. The association bears all costs, without an amount being fixed. The judgment was declared immediately enforceable; actual enforcement was not established. The supplementary judgment forms part of the earlier default judgment and does not decide a different dispute anew.

The default judgment was supplemented with facts and reasons without changing its result. All decisions of the meeting of 16 November 2011 were declared void for defective convening. The association bears costs; the judgment is immediately enforceable.