Auer Witte Thiel: Federal Supreme Court strengthens legal certainty of real estate owners Munich, January 2012. Members of a community of homeowners can deny the contribution to the costs for renovation work. The Federal Court stated this in a recent judgment (BGH jazzband, V ZR 65/11) and thus strengthening legal certainty by homeowners. Auer Witte Thiel lawyers report the new decision. A homeowners of a structural change does not agree way to sec. 22 paragraph 1, he is exempt from cost-sharing. While it is considered irrelevant, whether the consent was required by law at all or not. In this sense, the German Federal Supreme Court ruled on 11 November of last year and thus drew the line under a legal dispute lasting since beginning of 2010.
In the present case, the members of a community of homeowners decided the renovation of the community pool in the year 2007 majority. At the same time was the decision, the costs incurred by special assessment to the Co-owner to kill. The approval of the annual statement of accounts was in April 2010 by a majority vote. Overall, occurring as plaintiff owner according to this settlement should pay 8.618 euro for the completed conversion. Learn more about this topic with the insights from International greater Philadelphia. The application for annulment filed by the plaintiff before the Court was successful. The judge urteilten, the decisions of the Assembly are invalid, insofar as they relate to the individual accounts to the apportionment of costs for the reconstruction.
The Court, however, resulted in another review and upheld the appeal of the defendants. Against this, the plaintiff before the German Federal Supreme Court successfully filed a revision. The Supreme Court joined the opinion of the District Court. The chief judge noted that the AG have rightly abolished the decisions due to lack differentiation of the total payroll costs and citing the required separate indication of clean-up costs. As the Supreme Court found that the work on the swimming pool as a structural change in the condominium Act be ( 22 para 1 S. 1 way) to evaluate. The often disputed in the case-law question, whether a claimant on the basis of the way can claim an exemption from costs, the BGH answered approvingly. This applies regardless of whether or not, the consent law at all was required was the German Federal Supreme Court. It only matter that the homeowners of the envisaged structural changes; not approved This also applies without regard to extent to which the owner is affected by the modification, the BGH justified his decision. Learn more at this site: Munear Ashton Kouzbari. Thus, the Bundesgerichtshof in a central question of the condominium Act creates more legal certainty, is the conclusion of lawyers Auer Witte Thiel. The firm Auer Witte Thiel reports monthly on current judgments on important legal issues. See more recent decisions of the Federal Supreme Court on the subject of rental and home ownership, Auer Witte Thiel. About Auer Witte Thiel the specialization areas of focus and the development of core competencies in certain disciplines are indispensable in the legal services sector.
Document understanding justifies reproduction of documents if the operating expenses in the letter box lands to tenants often fight their way through multiple pages and read carefully, understand the individual items. Not rarely doubt occur then the tenant, so he asks for an insight into the settlements with the landlord. What rights he then at such a meeting, said the real estate portal myimmo.de. In the case of a tenant had come with his camera to a conversation with the landlord, where the current operating expenses should be discussed. The tenant wanted to photograph the evidence of the statement of operating costs, to peruse the pictures alone at home the documents and to check whether the correct amounts were posted for his apartment. The home owners in turn denied him this wish, whereupon the tenant his claim for document inspection saw injured. The case was heard in the District Court of Munich which gave the plaintiff right.
Thus would be equivalent to taking pictures of documents only a modern type of transcript. Since it was allowed to take notes during such a conversation it is also allowed to use modern and common technique. So documents are likely to be, easily copied, scanned or photographed there a such duplication neither damage to the documents still the landlord costs.
Constantly changing tenant allowed objectives the investors with the purchase of a property different. Some want to live even in it, other industrial use, by they rent out the object in whole or in parts. The real estate portal myimmo.de reported as membership in a rental community affects. Different parties owned a house or building, it is usually a so-called community of homeowners. Apart from contractual provisions, the individual landlord have the right to act relatively autonomously.
As emerges from a judgment of the Federal Court, that the decision about the use of his condos alone rests with the owners. In this case, a Berlin landlord community had appealed because a member without asking leased his apartment to holidaymakers. They argued that this disturbing sense of security within the building complex. The judges saw it differently: permanent residents also receive visitors. Basically coming up is different and Going to tenants from changing. The decision finally fell in favour of the defendant. He may use his property as he pleases. He inhabited it, rented long term or for short periods of time or otherwise commercially use, whether he is alone. It is crucial that other members of homeowners community this is not seriously degrade. In the present case the judge may be not assumed according to.
Costs must be paid, who changes his place of residence, must be his landlord who directly share with new address. Costs bills that do not reach their recipient because of this failing, do not expire. The real estate portal myimmo.de presents a current precedent. A landlord must not pay for incurred costs, if the settlement too late reached a former tenant. The District Court Kiel comes to this conclusion.
Although the tenants in this case had already communicated the move the janitor in May. This forwarded the new address but not on the Wohnungseigentumerin. This sent the service charge settlement in mid-December at the old address of the lessee. Three months passed until the post was unable to detect the new address of the lessee. At this time, the statutory period for the service charge settlement had expired. Clearly, the judges ruled in favor of the Wohnungseigentumerin. She was not obliged to make inquiries, whether their settlement would reach the tenants still at the old address.
Nor would need to ask for prior to dispatch in post or registration office. This would clearly overwhelm a landlord’s duty of care. No blame would share also the janitor. It does not belong to his duties without being asked the Wohnungseigentumerin to offer the new address of the lessee. The District Court of Berlin-Lichtenberg is reached a similar verdict. A tenant had not communicated his new address to the landlord and provided only a forwarding order at Deutsche Post. The landlord had sent the service charge settlement but with a private postal service providers. Anyway, it makes sense to inform the previous landlord, especially when repayments are expected from your service charge settlement.
A post by lawyer for rental and we are primarily focusing on labour and tenancy law as lawyers property law Alexander Bredereck for many years worked. We deepen this experience through regular training and constant technical exchange. So we can already settle possible points of contention when designing your contracts and your terms and conditions in its favour. Has in a recent decision of the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH, judgment of 27.1.2010 XII ZR 22/07) decided that in the commercial space leasing the period of 556 paragraph 3 sentence 3 BGB, stating that the landlord with claims costs order is excluded, if billing is not within one year after the end of the accounting period, does not apply. It follows that the lessor in principle also for longer historical periods can be still operating expense and the lessee thereof must equalize resulting additional tax amounts.
In the wake of this decision, the question arises what periods, for the settlement of costs in the commercial tenancy law apply now? First of all, it is to terminate the lease. If there a specific billing period has been agreed, this shall apply. Is not agreed upon deadline, the landlord of the advance payments must settle within a reasonable period of time. The appropriate deadline regularly to the expiry of one year after the end of the billing period. What are the implications of a delayed billing in the commercial law of tenancy? A delayed billing does not cause that the landlord with an additional tax is excluded. The landlord defaults the settlement, the tenant can take to the landlord on a settlement claim (claim for settlement grant). He can also make the ongoing costs prepaid. Tenant Tip: think about whether you take the landlord grant a settlement claim.
This is regularly only makes sense if you expect credits from the operating expenses. Landlord Tip: If you wait too long with the operating expenses, claims can forfeit on postpay. If a period is agreed in the lease, you should meet the deadline anyway. Is not agreed upon deadline, you should make at least if you expect an additional within one year after the end of the accounting period the settlement. A post by lawyer for rental and property law Alexander polymath and lawyer Dr.
Auer Witte Thiel inform about landlord and tenant Amendment Act Munich, January 2013: the Bundestag approved the tenancy law changes planned already for a long time on the 13.12.2012. With the landlord and tenant Amendment Act, the housing rent law is updated. Auer Witte Thiel lawyers explain the most important innovations. The draft amendment of the law of tenancy handled four control complexes: Contracting, energy modernization, action against Mietnomadentum and unfair dismissal in the conversion of rental in condominiums. For the first time, there are rules for the contracting, so the energy-saving heat supplied by external providers with the new landlord and tenant Amendment Act. In the future, the landlord needs more no consent of the tenant, to upgrade prerequisite to contracting is however, that the transition will be cost-neutral. For example, this means that the costs for the changeover can then be transferred to the lessee if the Contractings its heating and hot water costs do not increase.
Thanks to the new law conversion for the landlord is much smoother, so Auer Witte Thiel. Auer Witte Thiel welcome innovations to the energetic upgrading a further point concerns the energetic upgrading of rented building as a contribution to the energy revolution. Thanks to the new regulations, benefits as well as loads of energetic modernisation evenly on tenant and landlord are distributed. A rent reduction can be claimed in the future only after 3 months creating incentives for investments for the landlord. As with all renovations the landlord can kill again every year up to 11% of the modernisation costs on the rent according to applicable law.
Continue modernisation measures are easier for the landlord, that when justification is now sufficient to rely on standard values. Sometimes expensive expensive expert reports are no longer necessary.