Narva apartment associations Court decisions

The collection is growing. We explain decisions in accessible language. Browsing by subject helps readers study building management practice, explore similar situations and prevent conflicts.

Materials for studying practice. An editorial summary does not replace an individual legal assessment or promise a dispute outcome.

Subjects and subtopics

A subject describes the dispute; it does not establish a violation.

Additional parameters

Apartment association / building

Year of actCourt level

Reset all

Case 2-16-129736Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Malmi tn 10 korteriühistu · 80175972

Contracts and servicesWorks contracts and designPayment, advance payments and refundsRepairs and shared propertyRoof and atticOrganisation and funding of repairs

How it started · editorial summary

The extra 500 euros was not awarded: in this case the signed invoice confirmed receipt of the document, rather than agreement to increase the price.

Related prepared acts from this case are also shown.

29.09.2017 · JudgmentViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-16-129736/36Read act

Separate act page

Malmitare and OÜ Hiolen: an invoice did not prove an extra-payment agreement

Judgment · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

OÜ Hiolen · KÜ Malmitare · 12530714 · 80175972

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — OÜ Hiolen; defendant — KÜ Malmitare

How it started · editorial summary

A signature acknowledging receipt did not prove agreement on extra materials and price.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Malmitare (now — Narva linn, Malmi tn 10 korteriühistu). OÜ Hiolen sought 500 euros from KÜ Malmitare for additional roofing materials. The main roof-repair contract had been performed: the works were accepted and the agreed price paid. The dispute concerned a separate extra charge. The contractor treated the association representative’s signature on the invoice as confirmation of a contract amendment; the association said it only acknowledged receipt. The court agreed with the association. The contract prescribed a written amendment procedure which had not been followed. The acceptance record, final invoice, correspondence and meeting minutes did not establish an additional agreement. The documents and disputed invoice identified the same roofing material. The signature on the invoice was insufficient to prove a new obligation to pay for materials. The claim was dismissed. Hiolen bears its own and the association’s costs; the latter will be quantified separately after finality. The court granted permission to appeal.

Outcome of this decision

The 500-euro extra charge was refused; OÜ Hiolen bears costs, with the association’s costs quantified separately.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

1. Dismiss OÜ Hiolen’s claim.

19.01.2018 · JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-16-129736/45Read actAppeal19.01.2018

Separate act page

Malmitare: contractor did not prove agreement on extra payment for roofing material

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

OÜ Hiolen · KÜ Malmitare · 12530714 · 80175972

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and appellant – OÜ Hiolen, contractor; Defendant – KÜ Malmitare, customer

How it started · editorial summary

The extra 500 euros was not awarded: in this case the signed invoice confirmed receipt of the document, rather than agreement to increase the price.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Tartu Ringkonnakohus dismissed OÜ Hiolen’s appeal and upheld the refusal to award an additional 500 euros for roofing material against KÜ Malmitare. The court found that the contractor had not proved the association’s consent to increase the price or enter a separate additional-payment agreement. The contractor had repaired the roof and alleged that the parties agreed to buy higher-quality material for an additional charge. It relied on an invoice dated 4 November 2014 signed by representatives of both parties and sworn testimony from its representative. It argued that the signatures confirmed a contract amendment. The association objected that it had fully paid the agreed price of 28 378,12 euros for works and materials. It said the signature on the additional invoice confirmed only receipt of the document. There was no agreement to increase the price, and the final invoice and acceptance certificate retained the former price. The circuit court agreed with the association. The contractual estimate bound the contractor. To demand more, it had to prove a change to the total price or a separate agreement to cover the increase. The contract required a written amendment procedure: a written proposal by one party and a written reply by the other within five working days. The court did not see expressed consent to amend the contract in the disputed invoice; a note about agreement between the parties was insufficient. Neither the association’s conduct nor the contractor representative’s testimony established a separate agreement. Dismissal of the claim remained in force. Appeal costs were imposed on OÜ Hiolen; the county court will quantify them after the judgment becomes final. The judgment concerns proof of this specific extra charge and does not establish that a signature on any invoice always has the same meaning.

Outcome of this decision

Leave the Viru Maakohus judgment of 29 September 2017 unchanged and dismiss OÜ Hiolen’s appeal. The contractor bears appeal costs; the county court will quantify them after the judgment becomes final.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

The county court shall determine the monetary amount of litigation costs when the judgment becomes final.

Case 2-14-311Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 45a korteriühistu · 80250416

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesPayment accounting and set-offLate-payment interest and consequences of delayWater and sewerageCalculation of water chargesRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairsBasement, stairwell and shared rooms

How it started · editorial summary

The appeal court found sufficient evidence of the whole debt.

30.03.2015 · JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-311/25Read act

Separate act page

Proof of building charges and set-off for courtyard road expenses

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Puškini 45A Korteriühistu · Täisühing MAŠUK · 80250416 · 10444548

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Association — claimant; Täisühing MAŠUK — defendant, non-residential unit owner

How it started · editorial summary

Initially, part of the charges and the amount of the proposed set-off were not proved. The later appeal assessed the principal-debt evidence differently and awarded the full principal; the set-off was not reconsidered.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Puškini 45A Korteriühistu (now — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 45a korteriühistu). Puškini 45A Korteriühistu sought 419.83 euros in principal and 6.34 euros in late-payment interest from Täisühing MAŠUK. The company admitted 257.26 euros, disputed water circulation charges and other items, and sought to set off 3 466.54 euros spent on a courtyard road. The court found invoices insufficient to prove all costs and their allocation. It accepted that the road works were necessary and that set-off was possible in principle, but the amount was supported only by the defendant’s calculation rather than cost documents. Later, on 16 October 2015, Tartu Ringkonnakohus reversed refusal of the remaining 162.57 euros in principal: total principal awarded became 419.83 euros instead of 257.26 euros. Täisühing MAŠUK bears costs in both instances. Refusal of the set-off was not appealed or reviewed.

Outcome of this decision

Initially, the admitted principal of 257.26 euros was awarded, the remaining claim and set-off were refused, and each party bore its own costs. On 16 October 2015, Tartu Ringkonnakohus reversed refusal of the remaining 162.57 euros in principal: total principal awarded became 419.83 euros instead of 257.26 euros. Täisühing MAŠUK bears all costs in both instances. Refusal of the set-off was not appealed or reviewed; this change did not award additional late-payment interest.

A checked extract in this language is not yet available.

16.10.2015 · JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-14-311/35Read actAppeal16.10.2015

Separate act page

Repair and water-circulation charges

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Puškini 45A Korteriühistu · Täisühing Mašuk · 80250416 · 10444548

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and appellant — Puškini 45A Korteriühistu; defendant — Täisühing Mašuk

How it started · editorial summary

The appeal court found sufficient evidence of the whole debt.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Puškini 45A Korteriühistu (now — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 45a korteriühistu). Puškini 45A Korteriühistu claimed management charges from Täisühing Mašuk. The company disputed water-circulation, stairwell-repair and paving charges, relying on a separate entrance, and sought to offset courtyard-road costs. The county court awarded the admitted 257.26 euros, refusing the remainder and the set-off. The association appealed the refusal of 162.57 euros and costs; refusal of set-off was not reviewed. The circuit court considered meeting decisions, repair documents and the summer water-circulation methodology sufficient. A separate entrance did not remove common-cost obligations. The appeal succeeded: the total debt is 419.83 euros, including the earlier award. Costs in both instances were imposed on the company without fixing their monetary amount in this judgment.

Outcome of this decision

Appeal allowed; total debt 419.83 euros and costs in both instances borne by the company.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

3. Allow the appeal.

Case 2-13-34554Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 44 korteriühistu · 80183227

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayBills and justification of chargesRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairsApartment association meetings and decisionsBudget, management plan and rates

How it started · editorial summary

The court added reasons to its earlier judgment in favour of the apartment association Tallinna 44: defendant XX was ordered to pay a 40-euro special contribution, 7,16 euros in late-payment interest and 190 euros in costs.

14.10.2014 · JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-13-34554/54Read actFirst instance14.10.2014

Separate act page

A supplemented judgment explained the award of 40 euros for replacing electrical panels

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Tallinna 44 · 80183227

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant KÜ Tallinna 44 – sought the special contribution.; Defendant XX – disputed the basis for the contribution and late-payment interest.

How it started · editorial summary

The dispute and the court’s decision

The association sought an unpaid special contribution for replacing electrical panels, set by the meeting of 4 May 2011. The defendant argued that an equal contribution was inconsistent with the floor-area allocation in the articles, that no separate decision authorised late-payment interest, and that less had been spent on the work than collected. On 11 July 2014, the court granted the claim in an abbreviated judgment. After the defendant announced an intention to appeal, the court added the account of the case and its reasons. The award remained unchanged. The court found that the decision establishing the contribution had not been challenged and remained binding on the defendant. The unpaid 40 euros was supported by the calculation, accounts and minutes. The defendant had attended the meeting and received invoices stating a payment deadline of 30 November 2011. A total of 4 400 euros was collected for replacing the panels and 3 669,31 euros spent. The court concluded that the balance had been carried into the following year’s plan; the defendant had not challenged the decisions approving the report and plan either. The court derived the board’s right to charge late-payment interest from the law, so it did not require a separate meeting decision. The award comprised a 40-euro contribution and 7,16 euros in late-payment interest as at 1 May 2013, totalling 47,16 euros. Costs awarded were 60 euros in court fees and 130 euros for legal assistance, totalling 190 euros. The part of the court fee paid above the necessary amount was not imposed on the defendant: the claimant was informed of the right to seek reimbursement from the state budget.

Outcome of this decision

Supplement the judgment of 11 July 2014 with an account of the case and reasons. Order defendant XX to pay the apartment association Tallinna 44 a debt of 40 euros, 7,16 euros in late-payment interest and 190 euros in costs.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

2. Grant the claim.

Case 2-08-12127Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 10 korteriühistu · 80038614

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesLate-payment interest and consequences of delayHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesRepairs and shared propertyRoof and atticOrganisation and funding of repairs

How it started · editorial summary

The court considered OÜ Filmarinar’s appeal against the Viru Maakohus judgment of 08.05.2012 on the apartment association Puškini 10’s claim for building management costs, earmarked contributions and late-payment interest. The claim after increases was 6 030,64 euros.

18.06.2013 · JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-08-12127/46Read actAppeal18.06.2013

Separate act page

Apartment association Puškini 10 v OÜ Filmarinar: award reduced, some utility costs unproven

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ Puškini 10 · OÜ Filmarinar · 80038614 · 10294341

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — KÜ Puškini 10; respondent to the appeal; defendant — OÜ Filmarinar; appellant; claimant’s representative XX — association’s statutory representative; defendant’s representative XX — company’s statutory representative

How it started · editorial summary

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Puškini 10 sought payment from OÜ Filmarinar for building maintenance, earmarked contributions and services for the period from 1 March 2007 to 1 March 2011. After increases to the claim, the total was 6 030,64 euros. The association relied on an earlier agreement, meeting decisions, invoices and a schedule of charges. The defendant challenged the proof of costs, the documents and contractual grounds, as well as late-payment interest of 0,2% per day. On 8 May 2012, Viru Maakohus granted the claim in full. On the defendant’s appeal, the circuit court decided the case without remitting it to the first instance. It stated that an association member’s duty to pay for management of the building arises from the law; the existence of a document called an agreement does not itself make the relationship contractual. However, grounds for treating the earlier agreement as invalid or terminated had not been properly pleaded or proved in these proceedings. The court found the maintenance charge and earmarked roof repair contributions established by meeting decisions proven. For heating, waste collection and internet, however, the association’s invoices alone were insufficient: the actual costs and their allocation had to be proved. No additional evidence was submitted even after the appeal court invited it. That part of the claim was dismissed. The court also rejected the possibility of increasing by contract the statutory late-payment interest ceiling then applicable of 0,07% per day. The defendant’s allegations of damage were not determined as a counterclaim because no proper counterclaim had been filed. The appeal was partly allowed. The first-instance judgment was set aside, and a new judgment awarded 4 440,26 euros: 2 195,98 euros in principal and 2 244,28* euros in late-payment interest. Costs at both instances were allocated 73% to OÜ Filmarinar and 27% to the association.

Outcome of this decision

Set aside the Viru Maakohus judgment of 08.05.2012. Issue a new judgment partly granting the claim: order OÜ Filmarinar to pay the apartment association Puškini 10 a total of 4 440,26 euros for 01.03.2007–01.03.2011, comprising 2 195,98 euros in principal and 2 244,28* euros in late-payment interest. Partly allow the appeal. Allocate first-instance and appeal costs: 73% to OÜ Filmarinar and 27% to the apartment association Puškini 10.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

3. Partly allow OÜ Filmarinar’s appeal.

Case 2-08-53183Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 10 korteriühistu · 80038614

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesWater and sewerageCalculation of water chargesHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesRepairs and shared propertyRoof and atticOrganisation and funding of repairs

How it started · editorial summary

On rehearing, the company’s management-charge debt was proved.

16.02.2011 · JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-08-53183/57Read actFirst instance16.02.2011

Separate act page

Management charges of a non-residential owner

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Puškini 10 · OÜ Analan Auto · 80038614 · 10339202

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant on rehearing — KÜ Puškini 10; defendant and non-residential owner — OÜ Analan Auto; claimant representative XX; claimant adviser XX; defendant representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

On rehearing, the company’s management-charge debt was proved.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Puškini 10 (now — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 10 korteriühistu). KÜ Puškini 10 claimed management and utility charges from OÜ Analan Auto. On 14 May 2010 Tartu Ringkonnakohus overturned the initial refusal of 18 December 2009 and remitted the case to establish the amount of costs. On rehearing, the court examined the charter, tariff and roof-repair decisions, corrected bills and a consolidated calculation. The company disputed the basis of charges and treated its payments as water payments. The court affirmed the non-residential owner’s common-cost obligations, found the claim proved and found the alleged water payments unsupported by the required evidence. The claim was allowed for 3,114.73* euros. The new reasoning states that no late-payment interest was claimed. Costs were imposed on the company without fixing their amount separately.

Outcome of this decision

3,114.73* euros awarded; company bears costs, whose amount was not separately fixed.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

2. Leave court costs with the defendant.

Case 2-08-63694Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 2a korteriühistu · 80245744

Repairs and shared propertyFaçade, windows and balconiesOrganisation and funding of repairsApartment association bills, payments and debtsBills and justification of chargesDebt claimsApartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeBudget, management plan and ratesLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

How it started · editorial summary

An incorrect allocation method did not invalidate the entire repair decision.

10.12.2010 · JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-08-63694/26Read actAppeal10.12.2010

Separate act page

Repair contributions and allocation by area

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Korteriühistu Narva Sõbralik · 80245744

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and appellant — Korteriühistu Narva Sõbralik; defendant and respondent on appeal — XX; claimant representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

An incorrect allocation method did not invalidate the entire repair decision.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Korteriühistu Narva Sõbralik (now — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 2a korteriühistu). Korteriühistu Narva Sõbralik claimed earmarked facade and balcony repair contributions and late-payment interest from XX. The defendant disputed equal per-apartment contributions and the decision-making procedure. The county court refused the claim. The circuit court agreed that allocation contravened law and the charter but held only that part void, meaning legally ineffective: area-based allocation replaces it, while the decision to collect funds survives. Discussion of the management plan covered repairs and funding; defective notice was not established. Work and expenditure were proved. The share-based calculation exceeded the claim, so only the amount claimed was allowed and the refusal overturned. XX bears costs in both instances. A 2010 meeting decision provided an additional basis. The judgment does not endorse the original equal allocation or establish later payment.

Outcome of this decision

Refusal overturned and claim allowed within its limits; XX bears costs in both instances.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

Allow the appeal.