Owner’s membership recognised despite separate management of a building section

XX sought recognition of membership in Tallinna mnt 34 Korteriühistu, now Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 34 korteriühistu. The association denied membership, citing a section’s earlier choice of separate management, independent maintenance contracts and a meeting’s refusal to take that section into service. It also opposed assuming the section’s financial obligations. The court found both sections situated on one property divided into apartment ownerships, one of which belonged to XX. Membership arose by law rather than permission from a meeting. A separate management contract did not change that status. An unlawful refusal to admit an owner who was already a member could not exclude membership. On 25 November 2011 XX’s membership was recognised and all costs allocated to the association, whose denial had caused the litigation. The operative part also included a termination paragraph. The court did not award service charges or order assumption of a particular section debt. Confirmed subsequent development: on 3 February 2012 the circuit court retained recognition of membership and allocated both instances’ costs to the association. It considered ordinary claim proceedings appropriate but did not reverse the outcome because of the procedure used. Only the redundant termination paragraph was removed; there was no remittal. Entry into force and actual performance have not been separately reverified.