People have been aware of the potential problems in a homeowners’ association since the Middle Ages. Since that time, there has been floor-by-floor ownership of buildings, which, tellingly, bore the—slightly derisive—name “Händelhaus,” meaning “house of strife”… Even back then, one could expect to find quarrelsome individuals in such a building who would stir up trouble within the homeowners’ association.
It is also historically interesting that this form of floor ownership still exists—though it is slowly “dying out”—because the legislature created the term “condominium ownership” as a replacement through the Condominium Ownership and Permanent Residence Rights Act (WEG) of March 15, 1951. This was intended to address the severe housing shortage following World War II.
In a very recent decision by the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dated April 5, 2019, case number V ZR 339/17, condominium owners’ associations were granted the right to expel troublemakers from the association if peaceful coexistence with them cannot be achieved. In the case at hand, some homeowners had seriously threatened the property management company with dismissal “for good cause” if it did not comply with the wishes of the rebellious co-owners.
The peaceful homeowners were not willing to put up with this, as they were satisfied with the management and wanted to keep it. Consequently, they passed a resolution issuing a warning to the troublemakers. The troublemakers then filed a lawsuit challenging the warning and got a rude awakening.
The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) recognized the admissibility of the lawsuit but dismissed it, as the criteria required for a warning notice had been met:
- The owners’ resolution contained no formal errors,
- the prescribed procedure had been followed,
- The conduct subject to the warning letter can justify the resolution to revoke ownership,
- The resolution is sufficiently specific.
The BGH determined that the warning resolution was justified. Although the troublemakers were entitled to exercise their right to submit requests to the administration—a right held by every condominium owner—
In the case at hand, however, this right had been abused. It was proven that the plaintiff’s sole objective was to bring about a situation without a property manager; this was deemed to be alien to or hostile toward condominium ownership. Thus, the fact of abuse of rights was established.
The other owners were right to oppose this demand. Pursuant to Section 18 of the German Condominium Act (WEG), the owners’ association may require the troublemaker to sell his condominium unit.
