Narva apartment associations Court decisions

The court required evidence of tariffs and services despite the absence of a response.

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 10b korteriühistu claimed management-charge arrears and accrued late-payment interest from XX. After unsuccessful service of a payment proposal, the case was transferred to the county court. The court deemed documents served through the letterbox once procedural conditions were satisfied; XX did not respond. The court requested further evidence of the basis of the charges. The charter, meeting decisions on tariffs and a facade fund, supplier contracts and heating and water-circulation calculations proved the obligation and debt. The application was allowed. Principal, accrued late-payment interest, 470 euros in costs and statutory late-payment interest on costs from entry into force of the decision fixing them were awarded. Continuing late-payment interest on principal was not awarded in the operative part. Subsequent performance is not established.

Application allowed; debt, accrued late-payment interest and 470 euros in costs with statutory late-payment interest on costs awarded.

The design fee dispute depended on the agreed window count, fire safety and the client’s acceptance of the result.

The court dismissed OÜ NARVA EHITUSPROJEKT’s claim for the remaining facade design payment from the apartment association A. Daumani tn 9 because the work did not meet agreed terms. OÜ NARVA EHITUSPROJEKT sought 2 016 euros outstanding for a facade reconstruction design, late-payment interest and 40 euros in recovery costs from Narva linn, A. Daumani tn 9 korteriühistu. The association had paid a 504 euro advance but refused the final design and ended the contract. The disputed term was the number of basement windows: the client insisted on 15, while the designer invoked fire safety requirements and supplied a version with more. The court found 15 windows an agreed essential term despite the number not being separately stated in the signed contract. This followed from the initial design, correspondence and explanations. The design also had to meet mandatory safety requirements. The first version lacked the necessary smoke extraction analysis. The later version took fire safety requirements into account but departed from the agreed window count without client consent. Neither version therefore complied with the contract. Administrative approval alone did not replace compliance with contractual terms. The association objected in time and refused acceptance. The court treated its termination notice as lawful withdrawal from the contract for breach. The designer also withheld permission to use the work until full acceptance, so there was no basis to pay for a separately delivered part. The claim was dismissed in full, with costs allocated to the designer and the amount set later. The court did not assess another provider’s design or the lawfulness of its approvals.

Dismiss OÜ NARVA EHITUSPROJEKT’s claim in full. The claimant bears all court costs, with the amount determined after entry into force.

Defects justified withholding payment and recovery of repair costs, with the final result determined by set-off.

KÜ Kangelaste 47b (now — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 47b korteriühistu). Mirstart OÜ sought the outstanding price of construction works and late-payment interest from KÜ Kangelaste 47b. The association counterclaimed for the cost of remedying defects. The cases were joined after proceedings on earlier default judgments were reopened. The works included renewal of the plinth and paving and installation of canopies. The court found the defective cladding proved by photographs: tiles had fallen off extensively soon after handover. Acceptance did not prevent reliance on defects. The documents as a whole showed timely knowledge by the contractor, which failed to remedy them within a reasonable time. Third-party repair costs of 5544 euros were found necessary and reasonable. Lawful withholding of the price balance was temporary; the court did not find a price reduction or effective withdrawal from the contract. Once the cost claim was allowed, the basis for withholding ended, so principal of 3039.27 euros* was upheld. Late-payment interest of 683.21 euros was refused because lawful withholding was not late performance. Further late-payment interest was also refused because the mutual claims were set off. The court allowed the counterclaim and applied set-off, awarding the association 2500 euros* against Mirstart OÜ. Each party bears its costs. Payment of that award was not established.

The principal claim was allowed for 3039.27 euros* without late-payment interest; following the counterclaim and set-off, 2500 euros* was awarded to the association against Mirstart OÜ.

The appeal court rejected the association’s repair reimbursement claim and retained its obligation to pay the contractor, adding late-payment interest. Evidence of defects at the alleged time and notification was insufficient.

The circuit court allowed Mirstart OÜ’s appeal and dismissed the apartment association Kangelaste 47b’s appeal. After review, the association was ordered to pay the contractor 3 039,27* euros in outstanding fees, 1 017,61 euros in accrued late-payment interest and continuing statutory late-payment interest. The association’s claim for the cost of correcting works was dismissed. The contractor repaired the plinth and lintel and installed two canopies. The association alleged that facing panels began detaching and that the contractor had been notified but did not remedy the defects. It hired another company and sought reimbursement, taking account of the unpaid part of the original work. The contractor disputed the defects at the stated time and proper notification. The first-instance court granted the contractor’s monetary claim without interest, recognised the association’s claim and set them off. The association appealed only the allocation of costs; the contractor appealed the award to the association and refusal of interest. The circuit court assessed the evidence differently. Photographs from September 2016 did not establish the state of works in summer 2015: by the time of photography, the new contractor could already have started dismantling. A copy of a letter did not prove receipt. Board minutes without the contractor representative’s signature proved neither participation nor notification of defects. A new paid contract for filling joints also did not prove an agreement to remedy defects in the former work. It contained no such reference. The association had not proved defects at the alleged time, notification or a deadline for remedy; the contractual procedure for engaging an expert had also not been followed. The set-off and earlier award in favour of the association were therefore set aside. Costs at both levels were imposed on the association, to be quantified separately by the county court. Dismissal of the association’s claim concerns proof of the conditions for liability, rather than an established absence of any defects in the repairs.

Grant Mirstart OÜ’s claim and dismiss the association’s claim. Award 3 039,27* euros in principal, 1 017,61 euros in accrued late-payment interest and statutory late-payment interest on principal from the judgment date until payment against the association. Allow the contractor’s appeal and dismiss the association’s. The association bears costs at both levels, to be quantified separately.

An incorrect allocation method did not invalidate the entire repair 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.

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