Skip to decisions
Žuk — ANTON и JELENA

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

Reset all
Case 2-16-105937Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 34 korteriühistu · 80170621

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayObligations of multiple owners

How it started · editorial summary

The default award includes notarial costs and joint and several liability of two co-owners.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-105937/8Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kangelaste 34: joint and several award and notarial costs

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Kangelaste 34 · 80170621

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — KÜ Kangelaste 34; two defendants — co-owners XX

How it started · editorial summary

The default award includes notarial costs and joint and several liability of two co-owners.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Kangelaste 34 (now — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 34 korteriühistu). KÜ Kangelaste 34 sought management charges, late-payment interest and reimbursement of notarial costs incurred to formalise the rights of two co-owners XX. Both received the claim documents against signature but did not respond. The court allowed the claim by default, treating the association’s factual allegations as admitted in that procedure and the claim as legally justified. Debt, accrued late-payment interest, notarial costs and litigation costs of 545 euros were awarded jointly and severally. The association may seek performance from any debtor without recovering the same debt repeatedly. Further late-payment interest of 0.07% per day was awarded on the principal from 1 May 2016 until payment. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security; actual performance was not established.

Outcome of this decision

The claim was allowed by default; debt, late-payment interest and costs were awarded jointly and severally against two co-owners.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
5. The default judgment is immediately enforceable (TsMS § 467(1), § 468(1)(2)).
First instance
Case 2-16-587Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kosmonaudi tn 5 korteriühistu

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayObligations of multiple owners

How it started · editorial summary

The default judgment imposed joint and several liability on three owners.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-587/11Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kosmonaudi 5: joint and several award against three owners

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Kosmonaudi 5 · 801701189

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — KÜ Kosmonaudi 5; three defendants — owners XX

How it started · editorial summary

The default judgment imposed joint and several liability on three owners.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Kosmonaudi 5 sought management charges and late-payment interest from three owners XX. The claim documents were served, but no substantive responses were filed in time. In the default proceedings, the court treated the association’s factual allegations as admitted and examined their legal basis. The court awarded principal, accrued late-payment interest and costs of 245 euros jointly and severally by default. Performance may be demanded from any debtor, without recovering the same debt repeatedly. Further late-payment interest of 0.07% per day was awarded on the principal from 11 January 2016 until payment. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security and does not establish actual payment.

Outcome of this decision

The claim was allowed by default; debt, late-payment interest and costs were awarded jointly and severally.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
4. The default judgment is immediately enforceable without security.
First instance
Case 2-15-13995Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Joala tn 5 korteriühistu · 80158985

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsObligations of multiple ownersBills and justification of chargesHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating charges

How it started · editorial summary

The e-toimik record of service on the representative determined the appeal period; the court rejected the asserted later date.

Related prepared acts from this case are also shown.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-13995/16Read act

Separate act page

Co-owner’s obligation to pay building and heating charges

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Joala 5 · 80158985

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Association — claimant; XX — defendant, co-owner; XX — other co-owner, not joined as a third party

How it started · editorial summary

Pointing to another user of the apartment did not release the co-owner from building charges.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Joala 5 (now — Narva linn, Joala tn 5 korteriühistu). The court awarded KÜ Joala 5 unpaid heating, gas equipment maintenance and building maintenance charges against XX. XX argued that another co-owner used the services and was the association member. The court explained that selecting one co-owner to participate in the association does not release the others from charges. The unchallenged charging arrangement under the association’s decisions remained binding; actual use of the apartment was a matter between the co-owners.

Outcome of this decision

The claim was granted and the debt awarded against XX. The court did not decide the other co-owner’s liability; part-payment would reduce the outstanding common obligation. XX was also ordered to reimburse the association’s fee of 75 euros and representation costs of 255 euros.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Grant the claim.
First instance
· Court orderTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-15-13995/21Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Joala 5: appeal returned after the deadline

Court order · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Korteriühistu Joala 5 · 80158985

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Appellant, first-instance defendant — XX; Respondent, first-instance claimant — Korteriühistu Joala 5

How it started · editorial summary

The e-toimik record of service on the representative determined the appeal period; the court rejected the asserted later date.

The dispute and the court’s decision

In the debt dispute between Korteriühistu Joala 5 (now — Narva linn, Joala tn 5 korteriühistu) and XX, the first-instance court granted the claim and awarded costs on 03.02.2016. XX appealed. Tartu Ringkonnakohus refused to admit the appeal and returned it because it arrived after the deadline. The court found that the judgment was served on XX’s representative through the public e-toimik system on 03.02.2016. The thirty-day period began on 04.02.2016 and ended on 04.03.2016, while the appeal arrived on 06.03.2016. The representative’s asserted receipt date of 05.02.2016 was rejected as inconsistent with e-toimik records. The established date of service on the representative was decisive. Under the rule applied by the court, the returned appeal is treated as not filed. This act did not review the debt claim on its merits on appeal and does not establish actual recovery. An interlocutory appeal to Riigikohus within 15 days after service was explained, generally through a sworn advocate. The result of any such further application is unknown.

Outcome of this decision

Admission of the appeal against the judgment of 03.02.2016 was refused as late; the appeal was returned and is treated as not filed. The appellate court did not review the debt dispute on the merits. The subsequent outcome of the case is not established.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Refuse to admit XX’s appeal against the judgment of Viru Maakohus of 3 February 2016 and return the appeal to XX.
Appeal
Case 2-14-18154Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 10 korteriühistu · 80183397

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayObligations of multiple owners

How it started · editorial summary

Three owners are liable for a common debt; the court assessed costs separately.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-18154/44Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Võidu 10: joint and several award against three owners

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Võidu 10 · 80183397

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — KÜ Võidu 10; three defendants — owners XX

How it started · editorial summary

Three owners are liable for a common debt; the court assessed costs separately.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Võidu 10 (now — Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 10 korteriühistu). KÜ Võidu 10 sought management charges and late-payment interest from three owners XX. The court found proper service on all defendants and a response period with a warning about the consequences of silence. No responses were filed. The court allowed the claim by default and awarded principal and accrued late-payment interest jointly and severally. This is a common obligation of the three defendants rather than three separate recoveries of the same sum. Costs were also awarded jointly and severally, but reduced: the court used the applicable fee and proof of payment and allowed two hours of necessary legal work. The judgment is immediately enforceable; actual payment was not established.

Outcome of this decision

The claim was allowed by default; debt, late-payment interest and reduced costs were awarded jointly and severally.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Allow the claim by default judgment.
First instance
Case 2-14-54545Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kivilinna tn 4 korteriühistu · 80228651

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayObligations of multiple ownersRights in real propertyOwnership and register entries

How it started · editorial summary

An assumption of joint ownership did not prove joint and several liability for the debt.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-54545/23Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Daumani 4: the second defendant’s payment obligation was not proved

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Daumani 4 · 80228651

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — KÜ Daumani 4; first defendant — XX, proceedings previously discontinued; second defendant — XX, claim dismissed

How it started · editorial summary

An assumption of joint ownership did not prove joint and several liability for the debt.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Daumani 4 (now — Narva linn, Kivilinna tn 4 korteriühistu). KÜ Daumani 4 brought a joint and several claim for management charges and late-payment interest against two persons XX. Proceedings against the first defendant had already been discontinued by a separate order; this judgment concerns the second. The court found no evidence that both defendants owned the apartment. It recognised the first as owner and association member; a bailiff’s assumption of joint ownership did not replace evidence. Taking the second defendant’s written explanations into account, the court found no payment obligation under statute, contract or legal succession. This conclusion concerns the facts of this case. The claim against the second defendant was dismissed in full. The association bears its own and the defendant’s costs, but no monetary costs requiring reimbursement to the defendant were established.

Outcome of this decision

The claim against the second defendant was dismissed for failure to prove a payment obligation. No monetary costs were awarded to that defendant.

A checked extract in this language is not yet available.

First instance
Case 2-13-21554Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 18 korteriühistu

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayBills and justification of chargesPayment accounting and set-offObligations of multiple owners

How it started · editorial summary

The court added reasons to its earlier refusal to award Harjaks Inkasso OÜ money against two defendants XX. It found payment of the debt to the association proved.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-13-21554/80Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Supplemented judgment explained rejection of a debt collector’s claim: the earlier debt had been paid

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Harjaks Inkasso OÜ · KÜ Nartall 18 · 12341373 ·

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant Harjaks Inkasso OÜ — acquirer of the claim.; Two defendants XX — owners from whom a common amount was sought.; Apartment association Nartall 18 — previous creditor, not a party to this claim.

How it started · editorial summary

The court added reasons to its earlier refusal to award Harjaks Inkasso OÜ money against two defendants XX. It found payment of the debt to the association proved.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Harjaks Inkasso OÜ, which had acquired a claim from the apartment association Nartall 18, sought to recover 1 306,52 euros jointly and severally from two owners: 722,44 euros in principal and 584,08 euros in late-payment interest, together with further interest of 0,07% per day from 1 August 2013, capped at the principal. One defendant disputed the calculation and submitted invoices and payment certificates. The second did not respond to the claim. The court refused to enter a default judgment solely against the second defendant: in this dispute, the existence and amount of the common debt had to be determined jointly for both. The court interpreted the first defendant’s written acknowledgement as confirming an existing debt rather than creating a new independent obligation. The debtor could therefore challenge it without a separate counterclaim. The court found the assignment to the debt collector proved, but that did not exclude objections available against the previous creditor. The claimant’s calculation differed from the association’s invoices. The court found it proved that the debt had been paid by 13 June 2014. It did not accept in full another certificate stating there had been no debt throughout the period since 2010, because other documents confirmed the earlier debt. Nevertheless, the particular claim and interest sought could not be granted. The claim had already been dismissed in a short judgment on 23 October 2014. After the claimant announced an intention to appeal, the court added a factual description and reasons while maintaining full dismissal. Costs were left to the debt collector. The court corrected the value of the claim from 1 444,88 euros to 1 491,10 euros; this is a procedural valuation, not an award of money.

Outcome of this decision

Supplement the judgment of 23 October 2014 with a factual description and reasons. Dismiss Harjaks Inkasso OÜ’s claim against the two defendants for joint and several debt and late-payment interest. Leave costs to the claimant; correct the claim value to 1 491,10 euros.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. Leave procedural costs to Harjaks Inkasso OÜ.
First instance