Validity of condominium resolutions on special levies and marten deterrents

28 II 183/06 WEGCourt of First InstanceMay 22, 2007Tenancy lawPartially granted

Open source

Extracted by Omnilex

Omnilex summary

The applicant challenged the owners’ meeting resolution of 29 August 2006 under agenda item 3. The Bonn Local Court declared the resolution invalid insofar as paragraph 1 authorized commissioning the installation of marten-deterrent belts and also invalidated paragraph 2. The court rejected the application in all other respects. Court costs were allocated 71% to the applicant and 29% to the respondents; extrajudicial costs were not reimbursed. The value of the proceedings was set at €21,000, comprising €15,000 for the special levy, €3,000 for its increase, and €3,000 for the marten-deterrent belts.

Full text

Amtsgericht Bonn — 28 II 183/06 WEG — Beschluss

Entscheidungsdatum: 2007-05-22

Aktenzeichen: 28 II 183/06 WEG

ECLI: ECLI:DE:AGBN:2007:0522.28II183.06WEG.00

Dokumenttyp: Beschluss

Spruchkörper: Abt. 28 WEG

Tenor

Der Beschluss der Eigentümerversammlung vom 29.08.2006 zu TOP 3 wird hinsichtlich Absatz 1, soweit dort die Auftragserteilung für die Intallation von Marderabwehrgürteln beschlossen wurde und hinsichtlich Absatz 2 für ungültig erklärt.

Im übrigen wird der Antrag zurückgewiesen.

Die Gerichtskosten tragen der Antragsteller zu 71 % und die Antragsgegner zu 29 %. Außergerichtliche Kosten werden nicht erstattet.

Der Verfahrenswert wird auf 21.000,00 € festgesetzt (Sonderumlage = 15.000,00 €, Erhöhung der Sonderumlage = 3.000,00 €, Marderabwehrgürtel = 3.000,00 €).

Keywords

condominium ownershipowners’ meeting resolutionspecial levyresolution challengecourt costs

Key legal questions extracted by Omnilex

Whether the resolution under TOP 3 was valid insofar as paragraph 1 authorized commissioning the installation of marten-deterrent belts.

The resolution was invalid to the extent that it authorized commissioning the installation of marten-deterrent belts.

Whether paragraph 2 of the resolution under TOP 3 was valid.

Paragraph 2 was invalid.

The remainder of the applicant’s challenge to the resolution under TOP 3.

The remainder of the application was rejected.

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.