BGH judgment: BGH draws lines for distribution of costs among owners

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. The Federal Court of Justice now gave answers to an important partial question. Accordingly, a path can also redistribute costs at the expense of individual owners. However, this has to be well founded and must not happen arbitrarily. But how does that normally work with the distribution of costs? The most important questions and answers:

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.

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. As a rule, the distribution according to co -ownership shares.

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.

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

If you decided, the BGH decided, but there are limits. In the present case, this was about the complaint of a homeowner 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.

What does that mean specifically?

In principle, a path may set a new distribution of costs. However, this must not happen arbitrarily, the BGH in the case of the woman who did not want to support the renovation of the garage. “If, as here, the cost of separation between the residential building and the underground car park has been agreed, an owner without a parking space must not be involved in the costs of the underground car park,” said the presiding judge. However, the BGH referred the case back to the lower court. For this individual case, this must now clarify whether there was a factual reason for the changed distribution.

In the second case, the BGH had to decide whether costs that have so far been fitted to co -ownership shares should be distributed in the future according to heated living space. This had decided beforehand, which caused the plaintiffs to pay significantly more and also changed the key after the reserves. Permissible, said the BGH. The prior preference of the applicants is not objectively justified.

The federal manager of Haus und Grund, Gerold Happ, welcomed the decisions of the 5th Senate. “It’s right per se,” he said. If circumstances changed, new solutions for the distribution of costs could be found. It is then important, however, that owners’ communities made sure that changes were objectively justified, fairly and not arbitrary.

BGH decided earlier to share costs

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.

How can owners defend themselves against the costs?

If an apartment owner considers a decision to be illegal, for example, he can contact the responsible district court with an action for an appeal. The complaint serves to have a decision declared invalid in court and must be raised within one month of the decision, says Luisa Peitz.

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.