BGH judgment: Dispute in the home owner community: Who pays what?

In apartment owners’ communities (WEG), there is often a dispute about who has to bear what costs. Again and again such an argument ends up in court. This Friday, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) wants to announce its answer to an important partial question. The highest civil court in Germany wants to clarify whether a path can also redistribute costs at the expense of individual owners. But how does that normally work with the distribution of costs? The most important questions and answers before the judgment:

What is a home owner community?

The path is an association of all owners who have an apartment or commercial unit in a certain property. In this network, all communal matters of the building are regulated. The rights and obligations of individual owners and the community are regulated in the Housing Ownership Act. The law was last reformed by the grand coalition of the Union and SPD in 2020.

What does the community pay?

“Costs that affect the common property, such as the maintenance of the roof, the facade, the staircase or the heating system, bears the community,” explains Luisa Peitz, legal officer at the Haus & Grund Germany owner association. If no deviating regulation has been agreed, these costs are distributed proportionately to all owners – usually according to co -ownership shares.

What do owners pay themselves?

The costs for your own apartment – the “special property” – bear the respective owners themselves. “This includes in particular conservation measures within the apartment, such as the interior painting, floor coverings or private sanitary facilities,” said Peitz. However, the community could decide on a distribution of costs deviating from the legal regulation if this is objectively justified. For example, it can be stated that the replacement of windows is always paid by the respective special owner in whose apartment these are windows.

What is the “house money” and who has to pay it?

With the household, the running costs for operation, maintenance and administration of community property should be covered, says Peitz. The height is based on the economic plan that the administrator is drawn up annually. “The distribution usually takes place according to co -ownership shares – unless the division of division or a decision by the owner community provides for a different regulation. After the end of the financial year, an annual statement is drawn up in which the costs actually incurred are charged with the advance payments paid.”

The administrator is appointed and recalled by the apartment owners. “He himself has only the decision -making authority for measures of minor importance,” says Lothar Blaschke from the Association of German Homeowners. “He cannot decide everything that is significant and can cost money. However, communities often set a maximum limit, within the framework of which the administrator can act independently.

When can the path be redistributed?

In principle, community costs are distributed according to the legal regulation according to co -ownership shares. In the law, however, it also says that the apartment owners can decide on a different distribution for individual costs or certain types of costs. So the community has a so -called decision -making competence. “Now it’s about the question of how far this decision -making competence goes,” says Blaschke.

Can costs also be redistributed at the expense of individual owners?

The Fifth Civil Senate of the BGH in Karlsruhe now wants to clarify this. Among other things, it is about the lawsuit of a apartment owner who should support the costs for the renovation of a garage roof – although there is no parking space in the garage belonging to the facility. The community had decided to transfer the costs to all apartment owners in relation to their ownership shares. The woman was involved in the costs for the first time.

How did the BGH decide so far?

In March 2024, the BGH had already decided on such a first cost share of individual owners in a path and emphasized the scope for design of the community. “Even so far completely liberated owners, the BGH can be involved in costs for the first time by changing decisions,” says Beate Heilmann, chair of the Working Group on tenancy law and real estate at the German Lawyers’ Association.

As a rule, the simple majority are always sufficient for decisions in the community, says Heilmann. “Protection of minority takes place in that surprised owners may complain if they keep the decision not properly, arbitrarily, disadvantageous or maliciously.” However, the court could only check whether the decision will last for the relatively wide discretion.

How can owners defend themselves against the costs?

If an apartment owner considers a decision to be illegal, he can, for example, contact the responsible district court with an action for contestation or nullity. The complaint serves to have a decision declared invalid in court and must be raised within one month of the decision, says Luisa Peitz. “Among other things, the lawsuit can be based on the fact that the decision against the law, the declaration of division or the principles of ordinary administration violates or disadvantaged individual apartment owners.”

The lawsuit, on the other hand, is based on the determination that a decision is void right from the start, because it violates or was caught against mandatory legal regulations, for which the community of owners has no decision -making competence, explains Peitz. “In contrast to the action for appeal, the action for void is not time -tied.”

What complaining apartment owners should consider: If you win against the community in court and the way is condemned to bear the process costs, these costs may also be passed on to the victorious owner. The BGH decided that in July 2024. At that time, the presiding judge already admitted that this could possibly prevent potential plaintiffs from a lawsuit, especially in small communities.