Refusal to bar enforcement and a new set-off argument

OÜ Kotkas ja KO brought a separate action against KÜ Puškini 22, now Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 22 korteriühistu, seeking to have enforcement declared inadmissible. The company relied on payment of an obligation established in another case, no. 2-09-11708, in which the award after appeal was 819.54 euros. It argued that 513.40 euros had been paid before that judgment became final and 306.14 euros later. The association maintained that earlier payments had different purposes and only 306.14 euros had been paid towards the judgment debt. On 12 December 2011 the county court dismissed the action by default judgment despite the association having missed the response deadline. It held the claim legally unfounded on the company's own pleaded facts: the original objection relied on an event preceding finality of the judgment being enforced. The interim stay of enforcement was lifted. The circuit court upheld the judgment on 25 April 2012. It rejected the proposed broader interpretation of the grounds for opposing enforcement. The company's argument on appeal that set-off had extinguished the obligation introduced a new ground not relied upon in the original action. The court's duty to explain procedure did not require it to suggest changing the action; a separate action could be brought on that new ground. Costs in both instances were allocated to OÜ Kotkas ja KO. This judgment neither awards the debt again nor determines the outcome of any separate set-off action. Subsequent appeals and actual enforcement have not been verified.