Interpretation of a decision

The joint ownership community sued an apartment owner, who had not paid the apartment fees from October till December 2012.

In a first decision, the apartment owners decided to increase the repair reserve starting January 2012, however, based on another decision in November 2012 they ended up withdrawing this decision. Their respective intent was a retroactive repeal, however, the wording of the decision did not clearly define this. Both the court of first instance and the appellate court agreed with the defendant, who based his defense on the retroactive repeal of the decision, calling for crediting of his paid contributions.

The Supreme Court, on the other hand, agreed with the joint ownership community based on the argument that solely the wording of the decision was relevant, but not the implied intent.

For details regarding this case please visit Surpreme Cort, Please note our Disclaimer.