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 2-22-15067Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, […] korteriühistu

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

How it started · editorial summary

A bailiff sought permission to enter without XX’s consent to photograph property while enforcing a debt. The court allowed one visit within a limited period and with advance notice.

10.10.2022 · Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-15067/4Read actFirst instance10.10.2022

Separate act page

Permission for a bailiff to enter and photograph property

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, […] korteriühistu ·

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — bailiff XX; Debtor — XX; Creditor — Narva linn, […] korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

A bailiff sought permission to enter without XX’s consent to photograph property while enforcing a debt. The court allowed one visit within a limited period and with advance notice.

The dispute and the court’s decision

A bailiff sought permission to enter premises held by XX without consent to take photographs while enforcing a judgment debt owed to an association. The request followed refusal to allow photography needed for valuation and sale. The court considered photography necessary and proportionate for enforcement. It permitted one entry and use of the photographs in auction notices. Up to two witnesses and a police officer may accompany the bailiff; force may be used to enter if entry is obstructed. Permission lasts 60 days from the order, with at least 4 days’ notice to the debtor. The order is enforceable immediately upon notification to the applicant, irrespective of finality. Each participant bears their own costs. The act does not establish that entry, photography, sale or repayment actually occurred.

Outcome of this decision

Permission was granted for one entry without XX’s consent and use of photographs in an auction notice subject to the order’s conditions. Permission lasts 60 days and requires at least 4 days’ notice. Actual execution is not established.

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 to participants.

Case 2-21-141342Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Soldina tn 10 korteriühistu · 80170667

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

How it started · editorial summary

The association and two debtors agreed on instalments and payment of current invoices. The court approved the settlement and closed the case without establishing actual compliance with the schedule.

26.09.2022 · Court orderViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-21-141342/4Read actFirst instance26.09.2022

Separate act page

Approval of an instalment agreement for debt owed to an association

Court order · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, A-A. Tiimanni tn 10 korteriühistu · 80170667

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Narva linn, A-A. Tiimanni tn 10 korteriühistu; Debtor I — XX; Debtor II — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association and two debtors agreed on instalments and payment of current invoices. The court approved the settlement and closed the case without establishing actual compliance with the schedule.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, A-A. Tiimanni tn 10 korteriühistu (now — Narva linn, Soldina tn 10 korteriühistu) sought payment from two individuals identified as XX. After their objections, the case was transferred from payment-order proceedings to Viru Maakohus. The participants submitted an agreement acknowledging a debt comprising principal, late-payment interest and costs, to be paid in instalments over six months. Current invoices from the February 2022 invoice onward remain payable in addition to instalments on the old debt. For delay, the agreement provides daily late-payment interest of 0.022% on the unpaid principal. The act does not provide for acceleration of the entire debt. The court found no conflict with law or good morals, approved the settlement and discontinued proceedings. Costs were dealt with as agreed, with no further reimbursable costs. The court explained the availability of enforcement if the agreement is breached and the bar on a new action between the same parties about the same subject. Approval of the schedule does not establish that payment has been made.

Outcome of this decision

The instalment settlement was approved and proceedings discontinued. Current invoices remain separately payable and agreed late-payment interest applies to delay. This act does not establish actual compliance with the schedule.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

There are no reimbursable procedural costs not specified in the settlement.

Case 2-22-115560Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 63a korteriühistu · 80054501

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

How it started · editorial summary

The court approved a schedule already under way: the association reported four timely payments, but the ruling does not confirm full performance.

20.09.2022 · RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-115560/7Read actFirst instance20.09.2022

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 63a: court approved an agreement’s payment schedule already under way

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 63a korteriühistu · 80054501

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant – Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 63a korteriühistu; debtor XX – party to the agreement; association representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

The court approved a schedule already under way: the association reported four timely payments, but the ruling does not confirm full performance.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 63a and XX entered an instalment agreement for arrears. The court approved it after the association reported initial voluntary payments and terminated the case. The payment proposal in payment order proceedings could not be served, but the parties submitted a signed agreement. The association reported that the first four payments were made on time: performance had begun before court approval. The acknowledged obligation includes building maintenance, other payments and litigation costs. It provides equal monthly instalments and a separate final payment, plus interest of 0,02% per day on unpaid management expenses and other payments. Breach of the schedule makes the entire agreed obligation immediately payable. The court considered the agreement permissible and enforceable. Each bears its other costs; a 32,50-euro court fee refund from the state budget was ordered for the association. A request to exclude appeals was rejected as impermissible in the procedure used. Full performance of the schedule and the current balance were not established.

Outcome of this decision

Approve monthly instalments with a separate final payment. The agreement provides for interest of 0,02% per day on unpaid management expenses and other payments and immediate payment of the full obligation on breach. Terminate the case and leave other costs with the participants; refund the association 32,50 euros in court fees. Refuse exclusion of appeals.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

2. Terminate proceedings in civil case No. 2-22-115560.

Case 2-20-114528Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 7 korteriühistu · 80189247

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayBills and justification of charges

How it started · editorial summary

The court checked documents on expenses and payment allocation and the basis for electronic service, then awarded debt and statutory late-payment interest.

13.09.2022 · RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-20-114528/26Read actFirst instance13.09.2022

Separate act page

Võidu prospekt 7: court awarded maintenance debt and statutory late-payment interest

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 7 korteriühistu · 80189247

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant – Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 7 korteriühistu; interested person XX – owner; association representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

The court checked documents on expenses and payment allocation and the basis for electronic service, then awarded debt and statutory late-payment interest.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court awarded the apartment association Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 7 principal and statutory late-payment interest against owner XX. The claim was supported not only by invoices but also by meeting decisions, management plans and supplier documents. After the payment order application, the owner emailed an objection. The court accepted it despite the lack of a digital signature because it had no doubt about the sender. The case was transferred for further consideration. The association clarified its demand, seeking maintenance payments for periods before and after 2018. At that stage, the interested person did not respond. The court separately explained service. It used an email address previously confirmed by the participant and already used to communicate with the court. Attempts at other delivery methods were unsuccessful. On that basis, the court deemed the documents served. On the merits, the court noted that invoices alone do not prove the amount owed. The association must show the basis for shared expenses and their allocation among owners. Here it supplied calculations, minutes approving rates and plans, floor-area data, contracts and service invoices. The court found the principal proved. As charges covered periods before and after 2018, the court applied the relevant legislation for both periods. Use of the ruling in a new dispute requires attention to later legislative changes and the circumstances of that case. The ruling of 13 September 2022 awarded principal and statutory interest on it until performance. Costs were imposed on the interested person, for separate quantification. The award does not establish today’s unpaid balance.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the association’s application: award principal and statutory late-payment interest on it until performance against XX. XX bears costs, to be quantified separately after finality.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

4. XX shall bear the litigation costs. The court will quantify them within a reasonable time after the decision becomes final.

Case 2-22-9817Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Linda tn 1 korteriühistu · 80180424

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

How it started · editorial summary

The agreement provides for instalments, separate payment of current bills and a waiver of further late-payment interest.

05.09.2022 · Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-9817/8Read actFirst instance05.09.2022

Separate act page

Linda tn 1: payment of arrears and current bills

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Linda tn 1 korteriühistu · 80180424

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Narva linn, Linda tn 1 korteriühistu; Person concerned — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The agreement provides for instalments, separate payment of current bills and a waiver of further late-payment interest.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Linda tn 1 korteriühistu sought management-cost arrears. The court approved its agreement with XX to pay the acknowledged debt and agreed costs by instalments and ended the proceedings. The association waived further late-payment interest. The order does not describe detailed objections to the charges. Monthly payments and a separate final payment were agreed. Current association bills must be paid in addition. A missed instalment allows the whole debt to be enforced. Once the agreement is performed, no mutual claims remain in this case. Agreed costs total 298 euros: 25 euros in state fees, 270 euros in legal costs and 3 euros for obtaining a document. Each participant bears other costs. The association was awarded a refund of 25 euros in state fees from the budget. The agreed appeal period is two days from service. Neither performance nor the refund is established.

Outcome of this decision

Approve payment of the acknowledged debt and agreed costs by instalments and end the proceedings. Current bills are paid separately; delay permits enforcement of the whole debt. The association waives further late-payment interest. Each participant bears other costs; refund 25 euros in state fees to the association.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

2. End the proceedings in civil case no. 2-22-9817 following the conclusion of a settlement agreement.

Case 2-21-133973Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kivilinna tn 19 korteriühistu · 80444685

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

How it started · editorial summary

The company paid the demand after court action and the association waived its application. The case ended, with costs imposed on the company for later quantification.

04.08.2022 · RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-21-133973/8Read actFirst instance04.08.2022

Separate act page

A. Daumani tn 19: association waived demand after company paid; case terminated

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, A. Daumani tn 19 korteriühistu · Piigipuu Ridaelamud OÜ · 80444685 · 14554618

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant – Narva linn, A. Daumani tn 19 korteriühistu; interested person – Piigipuu Ridaelamud OÜ; organisations’ representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

The company paid the demand after court action and the association waived its application. The case ended, with costs imposed on the company for later quantification.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Narva linn, A. Daumani tn 19 waived its debt application against Piigipuu Ridaelamud OÜ after payment of the demand. The court accepted the waiver and terminated proceedings. The ruling gives neither the original debt amount nor detailed objections to charges. Its reasoning shows that the company met the demand after the association went to court. It did not object to the waiver within the time allowed. The court checked that the waiver was lawful and did not infringe protected interests. Applying the rules on waiver of a claim to the application, it ended the case without a separate decision on the initial arrears. This was not a settlement or a new award of the already paid demand. Litigation costs were imposed on Piigipuu Ridaelamud OÜ because it paid only after filing. However, the court did not quantify costs in its ruling of 4 August 2022. Quantification was left to a separate decision after finality. Partial refund of the association’s court fee was also left to a separate ruling. The document therefore confirms allocation of costs and the ground for termination, but awards no specified amount in costs or refund.

Outcome of this decision

Terminate the case on the association’s application against Piigipuu Ridaelamud OÜ. The company bears costs; their monetary amount and the fee refund are to be decided by separate rulings after finality.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

2. Piigipuu Ridaelamud OÜ shall bear the litigation costs.

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.