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 2-21-142079Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 42 korteriühistu · 80175430

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayBills and justification of chargesPayment accounting and set-offHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating charges

How it started · editorial summary

The court rejected the objection that payments were unrecorded and awarded remaining debt. Charges were checked against decisions, invoices and bank data.

29.07.2022 · RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-21-142079/30Read actFirst instance29.07.2022

Separate act page

Kangelaste prospekt 42: court found payments correctly recorded and awarded remaining debt

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 42 korteriühistu · 80175430

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 42 korteriühistu; interested person XX — owner; association’s representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

The court rejected the objection that payments were unrecorded and awarded remaining debt. Charges were checked against decisions, invoices and bank data.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court awarded the apartment association Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 42 a debt balance against owner XX. It checked bank data and the association’s calculation and found the owner’s proven payments accounted for. The association sought maintenance charges and interest. During proceedings it updated the amount for new charges and funds received. The owner claimed regular payment and challenged invoices, meeting minute extracts and interest calculations. The owner also demanded supplier contracts and considered charges unproven without them. The court examined articles, rate approval decisions, supplier invoices and payment data. Common electricity and waste collection were included in the maintenance rate set by the meeting, not charged separately. It found no excessive heating charges. The validity of meeting decisions was not at issue in this case. Comparing the owner’s statements with the association’s calculation, the court found matching payments and dates. The owner supplied no proof of payment of the remaining disputed invoices. The court derived entitlement to statutory interest from the law and articles, rejecting the argument that a separate meeting decision was required for this recovery. The ruling of 29 July 2022 awarded principal, accrued interest and further statutory interest on principal until payment. It also awarded 606 euros in procedural costs against the owner. This is the outcome established then; subsequent performance is not confirmed.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the association’s application. Award principal, accrued interest and further statutory interest on principal until performance against interested person XX. Allocate costs to that person and award 606 euros.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

1. Grant Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 42 korteriühistu’s debt application against XX.

Case 2-22-102518Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Raudsilla tn 10 korteriühistu · 80180826

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayPayment accounting and set-offBills and justification of charges

How it started · editorial summary

The court found bailiff funds already accounted for and awarded a 761,18 euro balance against the company. The claim concerns its earlier ownership period.

20.07.2022 · RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-102518/21Read actFirst instance20.07.2022

Separate act page

Raudsilla tn 10: debt awarded against the former owner, a company, with bailiff proceeds credited

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Raudsilla tn 10 korteriühistu · Osaühing Peremaakler · 80180826 · 11523072

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, Raudsilla tn 10 korteriühistu; interested person — Osaühing Peremaakler, former owner; organisations’ representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

The court found bailiff funds already accounted for and awarded a 761,18 euro balance against the company. The claim concerns its earlier ownership period.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court awarded the apartment association Narva linn, Raudsilla tn 10 a debt of 761,18 euros against Osaühing Peremaakler. It rejected the company’s objection that bailiff funds were ignored: the 645 euros received had already been deducted. The association sought maintenance charges for the company’s period of apartment ownership, accrued interest and costs. The company argued there was no debt because the association received money from the bailiff after auction sale. Its representative did not attend the hearing, and the applicant requested determination on the merits. The court established the ownership period and related association membership. It examined articles, management plans, meeting decisions, supplier contracts, invoices and debt calculations. The company did not specifically challenge cost allocation or prove other payments in the disputed period. The court found the calculation substantiated because it accounted for the 645 euro transfer. Sale of the apartment did not remove liability for remaining charges from the company’s ownership period. The ruling of 20 July 2022 awarded 761,18 euros in principal, 120,01 euros in interest to 16 March 2022 and further statutory interest from 17 March until principal was paid. The court reduced costs to 478* euros, limiting recoverable payment order stage costs and reducing the hearing attendance amount claimed. Statutory interest on costs runs after entry into force. The document does not confirm subsequent payment of these amounts.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the association’s application. Award 761,18 euros in debt, 120,01 euros in interest and statutory interest on 761,18 euros from 17.03.2022 until performance against Osaühing Peremaakler. Award 478* euros in costs and statutory interest on that sum after entry into force.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

2. Order Osaühing Peremaakler to pay 761,18 euros in debt to korteriühistu Narva linn, Raudsilla tn 10.

Case 2-20-129668Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Spordi tn 4 korteriühistu

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesPayment accounting and set-offLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought debt and late-payment interest. The court found only part of the service charges proved, excluded unsupported charges and credited earlier payments towards accrued late-payment interest.

01.07.2022 · Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-20-129668/49Read actFirst instance01.07.2022

Separate act page

Partial association debt award: invoices alone do not prove charges

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Spordi tn 4 korteriühistu ·

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Narva linn, Spordi tn 4 korteriühistu; Person concerned — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Spordi tn 4 korteriühistu sought utility and management debts from XX. Following an objection in payment-order proceedings, the claim was transferred to Viru Maakohus. The court requested supplier records, the basis for tariffs and an explanation of the allocation between co-owners, but no additional evidence or explanation was provided. The court found that invoices to an owner alone did not prove the association’s costs or their correct allocation. Service charges were supported by resolutions and the earlier tariff; a later increase lacked documentary support. Several utility and earmarked charges were not supported by the necessary records and were not awarded. The court applied XX’s earlier payments first to accrued late-payment interest because their intended allocation could not be established. It therefore refused the claim for late-payment interest already due, treating it as paid. Alongside proved principal, it awarded continuing statutory late-payment interest from 13 November 2020 until the awarded principal is paid. Each participant was left to bear their own costs because the partial refusal resulted from the association’s failure to provide evidence.

Outcome of this decision

The application was granted in part: proved service charges and continuing statutory late-payment interest from 13 November 2020 until the awarded principal is paid were awarded. Accrued late-payment interest was treated as covered by earlier payments; unsupported charges were not awarded. Each participant bears their own costs.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

Leave each participant to bear their own procedural costs. There are no procedural costs to be reimbursed.

Case 2-22-105181Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 24 korteriühistu · 80175647

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

How it started · editorial summary

Two owners XX must pay debt and interest jointly and severally. Only a 65 euro fee was awarded as the association’s costs; consultant costs were refused.

02.06.2022 · RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-105181/13Read actFirst instance02.06.2022

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 24: debt awarded against two owners, consultant costs not reimbursed

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 24 korteriühistu · 80175647

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 24 korteriühistu; two interested persons XX — joint owners; association’s representative XX — management board member

How it started · editorial summary

Two owners XX must pay debt and interest jointly and severally. Only a 65 euro fee was awarded as the association’s costs; consultant costs were refused.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court awarded the apartment association Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 24 debt and interest against two joint owners XX. They agreed to the demand at the hearing, but the court did not reimburse the association’s requested application preparation and consultation costs. The association sought principal, accrued interest and further interest of 0,022% per day. The owners sent no written objections and confirmed agreement at the hearing. The court examined the application on its merits, checking ownership, articles, invoices and calculation. No settlement was approved in the act. The court found the duty to pay maintenance and services proved. Because the apartment was jointly owned, recovery was ordered jointly and severally: the common amount may be sought from either debtor without recovering the full sum repeatedly from each. The association sought 175 euros for legal assistance. The court found that it had no contractual procedural representative: a board member filed the application and attended the hearing. Consultation and document preparation by companies did not themselves become costs of such a representative. Nor did the court accept the cost of a consultant at the hearing as reimbursable. The ruling of 2 June 2022 awarded principal and accrued interest jointly and severally, plus further interest of 0,022% per day on principal until performance. Only a 65 euro fee was awarded as costs. Subsequent payment is not confirmed.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the application. Award principal, accrued interest and further interest of 0,022% per day on principal until payment against two interested persons XX jointly and severally. Allocate costs to them and award a 65 euro fee jointly and severally.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

1. Grant the application.

Case 2-21-15967Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu · 80069939

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayBills and justification of chargesApartment association meetings and decisionsArticles of association and amendments

How it started · editorial summary

The association proved principal but not grounds to apply the articles’ maximum interest. The court awarded debt and statutory interest.

29.04.2022 · RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-21-15967/7Read actFirst instance29.04.2022

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 32: principal awarded, but articles’ interest ceiling not treated as an established rate

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu · 80069939

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu; interested person XX — owner; association’s representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association proved principal but not grounds to apply the articles’ maximum interest. The court awarded debt and statutory interest.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court awarded the apartment association Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 principal against owner XX but reduced the interest claim. The articles stated a maximum rate, but the association supplied no separate meeting decision establishing its application. The association sought payment for maintenance and utilities and charged interest of 0,07% per day. During proceedings it increased the claim for subsequent months and provided additional documents at the court’s request. The owner received the materials personally but submitted no position or objections. The court checked ownership, invoices, minutes approving rates, supplier documents and calculations. It found principal proved. The absence of objections did not replace that examination. It assessed interest differently. The articles required interest at the amount and in the manner set by the meeting, capped at “no more than 0,07% per day”. The court explained that a ceiling does not itself establish a rate of 0,07%. Without the necessary decision, it applied the statutory rate and calculated accrued interest on that basis instead of the sums sought. The ruling of 29 April 2022 partly granted the application, awarding principal, interest accrued at the statutory rate and further statutory interest on principal until performance. The interested person was left to bear their own costs and 90% of the association’s costs, with the remaining 10% borne by the association. The amount was to be determined separately. The act resolves a specific charging dispute and does not confirm that the award has already been paid.

Outcome of this decision

Partly grant the application. Award principal, accrued statutory interest and further statutory interest on principal until performance against interested person XX. Leave their own costs to them; allocate 90% of the association’s costs to them and 10% to the association. Determine the monetary amount separately.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

1. Partly grant Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu’s application to recover debt from XX.

Case 2-21-138248Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Vaksali tn 13 korteriühistu · 80480787

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayInstalments and payment schedules

How it started · editorial summary

After objections to the payment order, the association and debtor settled the dispute by agreement.

19.01.2022 · RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-21-138248/5Read actFirst instance19.01.2022

Separate act page

Vaksali tn 13: court approved instalments agreed by association and debtor

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Vaksali tn 13 korteriühistu · 80480787

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant – apartment association; Debtor – XX

How it started · editorial summary

After objections to the payment order, the association and debtor settled the dispute by agreement.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Viru Maakohus approved the settlement between Narva linn, Vaksali tn 13 korteriühistu and debtor XX and terminated proceedings. The parties agreed payment of building maintenance arrears, a 30,03-euro court fee and 89,70 euros for legal assistance. These are agreed terms, rather than an independent judicial determination of every basis for the debt. The debtor undertook to repay the debt in monthly instalments. The agreement also provides for late-payment interest of 0,02% per day on unpaid building maintenance arrears from the agreed date. Breach of the schedule makes the entire remaining obligation immediately enforceable. The case began with an application for a payment order. After the debtor objected, papers were referred to Viru Maakohus, where the participants submitted the agreement. Each bears its other litigation costs. The court ordered a 30,03-euro court fee refund to the association from the state budget. The ruling contains the parties’ agreed waiver of appeal; actual performance of the agreement is not confirmed.

Outcome of this decision

Approve monthly instalments for the debt, 30,03 euros in court fees and 89,70 euros for legal assistance. Late-payment interest of 0,02% per day is provided on unpaid building maintenance arrears from the agreed date; breach makes the full remaining obligation immediately enforceable. Terminate proceedings. Each party bears its other costs. Refund the association 30,03 euros in court fees.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

3. The parties shall bear their own litigation costs not specified in the settlement.

Case 2-21-138254Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 12 korteriühistu · 80508340

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayInstalments and payment schedules

How it started · editorial summary

The association and debtor submitted an instalment agreement before a payment order was issued.

10.01.2022 · RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-21-138254/5Read actFirst instance10.01.2022

Separate act page

Kreenholmi tn 12: instalments approved, but court did not accept appeal waiver

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 12 korteriühistu · 80508340

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant – apartment association; Debtor – XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association and debtor submitted an instalment agreement before a payment order was issued.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Viru Maakohus approved the settlement between Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 12 korteriühistu and debtor XX and terminated proceedings. The agreement provides for payment of building maintenance and other arrears, a 22,50-euro court fee and 89,70 euros for legal assistance. The parties agreed monthly instalments. The ruling contains no confirmation of performance. The association may demand late-payment interest of 0,02% per day on unpaid expenses and other payments from the agreed date. Breach of the schedule makes the entire remaining obligation immediately enforceable. Each participant bears expenses not named in the agreement. The court left the fee refund for a separate ruling after finality. It rejected the parties’ request to exclude appeals, finding such an agreement impermissible in the procedure used. Approval of the settlement therefore did not mean waiver of the right to appeal the ruling.

Outcome of this decision

Approve monthly instalments for the debt, 22,50 euros in court fees and 89,70 euros for legal assistance, with late-payment interest of 0,02% per day on unpaid expenses and other payments from the agreed date. Breach makes the full remaining obligation immediately enforceable. Terminate proceedings. Refuse the request to exclude appeals. Decide the fee refund separately.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

2. Terminate proceedings in civil case No. 2-21-138254.

Case 2-21-112650Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Masina tn 3 korteriühistu · 80480764

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayBills and justification of chargesHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesWater and sewerageCalculation of water charges

How it started · editorial summary

The owner, a commercial company, appealed against recovery, citing non-receipt of invoices and case documents.

29.11.2021 · RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-21-112650/21Read actAppeal29.11.2021

Separate act page

A. Bastrakovi tn 3: Peremaakler’s appeal against debt recovery dismissed

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, A. Bastrakovi tn 3 korteriühistu · OÜ Peremaakler · 80480764 · 11523072

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — apartment association; Debtor and appellant — OÜ Peremaakler

How it started · editorial summary

The owner, a commercial company, appealed against recovery, citing non-receipt of invoices and case documents.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Tartu Ringkonnakohus upheld the award against OÜ Peremaakler in favour of Narva linn, A. Bastrakovi tn 3 korteriühistu: 1003,78 euros in building maintenance costs and 44,69 euros in late-payment interest. The company’s appeal was dismissed and appeal costs allocated to it. The county court was to determine court costs later. The company claimed it had received neither association invoices nor court documents and could not inspect the application or object. The circuit court checked the judicial information system. It showed that materials were sent to the company and one statutory representative confirmed receipt. Documents were also sent to another representative at an address known to the court from other proceedings, with a service procedure warning. The court found the company had an opportunity to present its position. The court also examined the grounds for charges. The association supplied invoices, accounting data, articles, decisions approving management plans, and heating and gas equipment maintenance supplier invoices. The court considered these to prove the costs and allocation between owners, with charges consistent with the adopted procedure. The company gave no specific objections to the debt calculation in its appeal. The award was therefore upheld after checks of both service and debt evidence. The ruling does not confirm actual payment of the sums awarded.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss the appeal and uphold the ruling of 22 September 2021. Allocate appeal costs to OÜ Peremaakler, with the amount set later by the county court.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

1. Dismiss the appeal against the ruling and uphold the Viru Maakohus ruling of 22 September 2021.

Case 2-21-15117Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kosmonaudi tn 3 korteriühistu · 80162834

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought debt from XX, who had acquired the property by inheritance. The court checked the basis of liability and calculation and awarded principal, late-payment interest and costs.

19.11.2021 · Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-21-15117/5Read actFirst instance19.11.2021

Separate act page

Building charges after ownership passed by inheritance

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kosmonaudi tn 3 korteriühistu · 80162834

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Narva linn, Kosmonaudi tn 3 korteriühistu; Person concerned, successor to the owner — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought debt from XX, who had acquired the property by inheritance. The court checked the basis of liability and calculation and awarded principal, late-payment interest and costs.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Kosmonaudi tn 3 korteriühistu sought unpaid management and utility charges from XX, to whom the property had passed by inheritance. According to the association’s application, the disputed debt arose after the previous owner’s death; that owner had owed the association no debt. It relied on unpaid invoices and resolutions supporting charges and late-payment interest. XX received the application, attachments and admission order but submitted no objections. The court determined the application in non-contentious proceedings and checked ownership and succession records. It found that succession and the obligation to contribute to the association’s expenses justified the claim against XX. It considered the invoices and payment calculation substantiated. The application was granted: principal and accrued late-payment interest were awarded, together with continuing statutory late-payment interest from 25 September 2021 until the awarded principal is paid. The court also fixed reimbursable procedural costs and awarded late-payment interest on them from finality of the relevant order until payment. The lack of objections is not described as an admission by XX; the result rests on the court’s findings. Actual payment was not established.

Outcome of this decision

The association was awarded principal, accrued late-payment interest, continuing late-payment interest on the awarded principal from 25 September 2021 until it is paid and procedural costs. Separate late-payment interest applies to awarded costs after the order becomes final. This order does not establish actual payment.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

Grant the application.

Case 2-21-4363Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Soldina tn 2 korteriühistu · 80180921

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayInstalments and payment schedules

How it started · editorial summary

The association and debtor submitted an agreement acknowledging debt and providing a payment schedule.

18.07.2021 · RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-21-4363/4Read actFirst instance18.07.2021

Separate act page

A-A. Tiimanni tn 2: two-year instalments for debt and costs approved

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, A-A. Tiimanni tn 2 korteriühistu · 80180921

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — apartment association; Debtor — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association and debtor submitted an agreement acknowledging debt and providing a payment schedule.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Viru Maakohus approved a settlement between Narva linn, A-A. Tiimanni tn 2 korteriühistu and debtor XX and terminated proceedings. The debtor acknowledged debt for building maintenance and other payments, plus a 25 euro fee, 300 euros in legal assistance and 3 euros for collecting evidence. The parties agreed monthly payments over two years. The association may seek late-payment interest of 0,02% per day on unpaid debt from the agreed date. This term is separate from the consequence of breach of schedule: if the agreement is breached, the association may demand immediate payment of all remaining debt. The court found the agreement admissible. Each participant bears other court costs. The association was awarded a 25 euro fee refund from the budget. The parties waived appeals against the ruling. The act explains recourse to a bailiff on non-performance. It does not confirm actual payments or refund of the fee.

Outcome of this decision

Approve two-year monthly instalments for debt and costs: a 25 euro fee, 300 euros in legal assistance and 3 euros for evidence collection. Provide late-payment interest of 0,02% per day on unpaid debt from the agreed date and a right to demand immediate payment of the balance on breach of schedule. Terminate proceedings; leave other costs to participants. Refund the association a 25 euro fee.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

4. The parties shall bear their own procedural costs not specified in the settlement.

Case 2-21-4758Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Soldina tn 2 korteriühistu · 80180921

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayInstalments and payment schedules

How it started · editorial summary

The association and debtor XX agreed on acknowledgment of debt, inclusion of costs and monthly instalments. The court approved the terms and terminated the case.

09.07.2021 · RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-21-4758/4Read actFirst instance09.07.2021

Separate act page

A-A. Tiimanni tn 2: court approved instalments for 914,22 euros in debt and costs

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, A-A. Tiimanni tn 2 korteriühistu · 80180921

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant – Narva linn, A-A. Tiimanni tn 2 korteriühistu; interested person XX – debtor and party to the agreement; association representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association and debtor XX agreed on acknowledgment of debt, inclusion of costs and monthly instalments. The court approved the terms and terminated the case.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court approved the instalment agreement between the apartment association Narva linn, A-A. Tiimanni tn 2 and debtor XX and terminated the case. The association initially sought principal and continuing late-payment interest; before determination, the participants agreed a smaller debt and payment schedule. The ruling does not set out separate debtor objections to the initial charges. Under the agreement, XX acknowledged unpaid management expenses and other payments. The agreed obligation also includes 25 euros, half the court fee, 300 euros for legal assistance and 3 euros to obtain evidence. The debtor acknowledged that payment was due, and the association gave additional time for voluntary performance. The schedule provides for monthly payments. The agreement entitles the association to demand late-payment interest of 0,02% per day on unpaid management expenses and other payments from the agreed date. Breach makes the entire agreed obligation immediately payable. The court examined the documents, checked the agreement’s permissibility and enforceability, approved it on 9 July 2021 and terminated proceedings. Each participant bears expenses not included in the agreement. The court ordered the association refunded 25 euros, half the court fee, from the state budget. The participants waived appeal against the ruling; it does not confirm subsequent payment under the schedule.

Outcome of this decision

Approve monthly instalments for the debt and costs: 25 euros, half the court fee, 300 euros for legal assistance and 3 euros to obtain evidence. Provide for late-payment interest of 0,02% per day on unpaid management expenses and other payments from the agreed date and immediate full payment on breach. Terminate proceedings, leave other costs with the participants and refund the association 25 euros in court fees.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

II. Terminate proceedings in civil case 2-21-4758 following approval of the settlement.

Case 2-20-7413Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu · 80121083

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesObligations of multiple ownersRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairs

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought charges jointly and severally from two owners. Only the proved repair-fund contributions were awarded. The appeal court later increased that part to include December 2020; the remaining dismissal for lack of proof was retained.

29.06.2021 · Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-20-7413/45Read actFirst instance29.06.2021

Separate act page

Co-owners’ debt: only repair-fund contributions were proved

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu · 80121083

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu; Person concerned I, owner — XX; Person concerned II, owner — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu sought debt jointly and severally from two owners, XX. They challenged the amount charged, the floor area used and receipt of invoices. One owner also relied on the condition of a partition wall and alleged failures by the association. The court repeatedly asked the association to explain its calculation and supply supplier records. The first-instance court rejected the contention that invoices had not been received and did not treat the condition of the premises as an independent basis for avoiding every charge in this dispute. However, recovery still required proof of costs and their allocation. The association’s own invoices and accounting table did not fully establish these matters. Supplier-liability records and the basis of many tariffs were not provided. The first-instance court found only the repair-fund contributions proved and awarded them jointly and severally. The remaining claims were rejected for lack of proof. On 4 February 2022, Tartu Ringkonnakohus increased the repair-fund award to include December 2020, so that part covers the whole of 2020. The remaining dismissal was retained. Each participant bears their own costs in both instances.

Outcome of this decision

The joint and several award was limited to proved repair-fund contributions. On 4 February 2022, Tartu Ringkonnakohus increased it to include December 2020 and retained dismissal of the other claims for lack of proof. Each participant bears their own costs in both instances.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

Grant the application of Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu in part. […] Dismiss the remainder of the application for lack of proof.