When you enter a room that did not decorate, predecessor lodger left a few furniture to you, and as redound, the meeting when your acceptance is taken away renovates wall of building, stucco simply. But you went back on your word later, predecessor lodger is based on this acceptance to ask you pay compensation, and you refuse. Predecessor lodger tells you the court, how can be German judge sentenced?
Newest case:
On August 22, the German federal supreme supreme court that is located in Kaersilue (BGH) make a ruling in the light of a such cases: What the settle or live in a strange place rents before be opposite is affirmatory, unexpectedlying flavour hires a guest to have the obligation that pays a building upkeep costs. Even if serves as hired a guest to make the commitment that before taking away, decorates, but should move only fashionable the building is the condition that did not decorate, hire a guest to need not pay a building the fee that decorate. (case date: VIII ZR277/16)
Increase what this court decision is regarded as pair of rights and interests that rent a settle or live in a strange place further, also be the complement that adjudicates to having milepost type then 2015.
Classic case 1: Lodger need not pay a building to decorate charge
In a chummage renting dispute at that time, the house that landlord rented one is not decorated, ask lodger is assumed however decorate charge. Federal supreme court entered a judgement on March 18, 2015: Lodger need not be assumed decorate charge. (case date: VIII ZR 185/14)
When if lodger is entered,living, the building has not been decorated, lodger need not be assumed decorate charge, although rent a house,writing in the contract assume by lodger, lodger also need not be fulfilled. The court thinks, if ask lodger is assumed,decorate charge, inequitable to lodger, because of the building that did not decorate it is the use position that predecessor lodger leaves, renovate charge to ought not to be assumed by bridal chamber guest.
Although Germany is not state of legal precedent law, but legal precedent still acted important role in process of German court ruling. Want to be able to find relevant legal precedent only in Germany so, can be opposite basically of dispute decide have probably understanding.
Germany " focus " sundry with respect to check the representative case in the German building dispute that rent, the advantageous position that Qing Dynasty of help reader manage is hiring room respect duty compulsory.
Classic case 2: Lodger need not ask professional personage to decorate a building
A landlord of Munich asks lodger compensates for 7000 euro, because lodger rejects to ask professional personage to decorate, however oneself undertook decorating.
Court decision: On June 9, 2010, federal supreme court adjudicates: Lodger need not be compensated for. (case date: VIII ZR 294/09)
According to German law, accountability those who ask professional personage to decorate a building is landlord, lodger of and rather than. But actually a lot of landlord think a lodger of this responsibility impute to, want to restrain lodger in the contract. Adjudicate according to the court knowable, lodger is completely OK oneself decorate a building, must not ask professional public figure, of course premise is him lodger did not cause damage to the building in decorating a process.
Classic case 3: Color of not reductive wall, lodger beard is responsible
One lodger leased the building that a wall is white, the wall when returning a house became look of red, yellow, La San. Landlord whitewashs twice the color that ability Fu covers lodger whitewashs, landlord asks lodger compensates for 3648.82 euro.
Court decision: On November 6, 2013, federal supreme court adjudicates: Lodger must be compensated for. (case date: VIII ZR 416/12)
Plaster room does not need when normally lodger returns a house, unless flyblown wall, oneself must whitewash dirty place afresh. Nevertheless, if lodger becomes wall stucco brunet or strange color, although when lodger lives oneself, this is allowing, but the lodger when returning a house is accountability restore wall color into unvarnished.
Classic case 4: Lodger has authority to smoke indoors, but damage a building to need overhaul
One lodger rents a house nearly 40 years, but because smoking is too fierce, landlord thought to damage a building, think out to drive him.
Court decision: On July 31, 2013, court of state of much husband of Du Sai Er (Landgericht D ü Sseldorf) court decision: Landlord cannot because of this end an agreement, lodger still can smoke in house, but once lodger returns a house must complete overhaul building, keep clear of to damage because of what smoking causes. (case date: 24 C 1355/13) lodger has the right to smoke in his building, premise is not to affect someone else.
Classic case 5: When lodger returns a house, the floor needs to restore unvarnished
Landlord complains lodger to was not fulfilled rebuild regularly the obligation of the house, floor of building of as a result is damaged.
Court decision: On April 3, 2001, court of division swell place (Amtsgericht K? Ln) court decision: If the floor is normal depreciation only, should be in charge of face-lifting by landlord. It is only when floor of lodger bang up, give wooden floor lane for instance deep scratch, lodger just needs to renovate floor or compensation. (case date: 212 C 239/00)
Classic case 6: Hire a guest to authority undertakes rebuilding in the building that rent
Landlord requirement lodger pulls down rebuilt bathroom, and pay is extra cash pledge. Local court first instance adjudicates, lodger needs to pay 6000 euro deposit. Lodger refuses to obey, continue to appeal.
Hamburger state court (Landgericht Hamburg) it is at the final court decision March 4, 2005: Landlord ought to allow lodger to undertake this kind rebuilds, premise is to rebuild the project must accord with specialized standard. (case date: 311 S 128/04)
If lodger rebuilds,building purpose is contented housing demand, be not ruinous, and rebuild the project accords with specialized standard, that landlord ought to permit this kind of practice. Before rebuilding nevertheless, lodger had better be communicated ahead of schedule with landlord.
Classic case 7: Plant in the garden tree, droit belongs to landlord
Landlord bang up the fence wall plant of lodger garden, lodger tells landlord the court.
Court decision: On March 26, 2014, acting Temoerde state court (Landgericht Detmold) court decision: Reject lodger to sue. (case date: VIII ZR 294/09)
The court thinks, lodger should know when planting tree or shrub, when the plant is moving, these are to take what do not go. After this cultivates species to go down, be linked together with ground, this kind of connection is not temporary, however long, because this plant has made the component of ground, lodger also lost pair of floral to have right. Of course, here is to point to the plant such as the tree that moves hard, bush, is not the plant such as the flowers and plants that moves easily, vegetable.
Classic case 8: Lodger loses the key, change seek redress of ability of the landlord after the lock
When lodger returns a house, hand in only answer a key, another is lost. Landlord asks lodger is compensated for, reason is room lock no longer safe. But landlord did not change to be locked up newly, then lodger rejects to compensate for, be accused by landlord court.
Court decision: On March 5, 2014, federal supreme court adjudicates: Reject landlord to sue. (case date: VIII ZR 205/13) the reason is: Lodger loses the key, should bear the cost that changes to be locked up newly, but premise is landlord changed new lock really. The court thinks, just produce a loss after changing to be locked up newly only, at this moment just reason lets lodger compensate for.
Classic case 9: Lodger owes money, landlord cannot be deducted from inside cash pledge
One lodger is in 2006 to during 2009, be asked every year to fill in surtax Zhang sheet pay fee, but lodger was not handed in, a few years accumulative total owes cost nearly 1000 euro. When this lodger returned a house 2009, landlord did not remand lodger is close the cash pledge of 700 euro. Landlord thinks this cash pledge should owe cost to put in landlord 's charge as lodger all. By 2012, lodger tells landlord court.
Court decision: On July 20, 2016, federal supreme court adjudicates: Lodger wins the lawsuit. (case date: VIII ZR 263/14)
This case is compared actually complex, drag in arrives problem of litigant effectiveness for a given period of time. Generally speaking, the purpose of landlord collection cash pledge, be afraid that lodger owes cost namely, building attaint waits. This incident is normal the program should be landlord is opposite inside period of efficacy lodger to lodge a complaint, ask its fill pay surtax, lodger fills after handing in, landlord should remand cash pledge to lodger. But landlord is in 3 years of significant litigation period inside, not right lodger to lodge a complaint, it is furtive only in detained lodger cash pledge. Lodger instead is so right later landlord to lodge a complaint, win the lawsuit finally still. (original title: Is there issue with landlord when returning a house? See courts of these classic case Germany how be sentenced! )
