The court’s ripening costs

The nuances of legality

Kaunas Romas Rainys admits to being shocked by a judgment of the Plungė Palace of Klaipėda District Court, which awarded him a debt to the costs of litigation seven times.

Not only does the man doubt the legitimacy of the debt, but he is even more surprising that it is perfectly normal for the court to have $ 1.4,000. Such financially high lawyers’ services were thrown out of the debt.

But about everything from the beginning. 2018 R. Rainys purchased an apartment from a apartment building called « Akacijos villas » from the builder Nuva Capital. The apartment was acquired in an unfinished house. Only 2021. The installation of the apartment was started. Until then, the apartment was not suitable for living – it was not heated, no water was used.

« I bought the apartment for my son. There was no need, so we did not immediately install and did not visit the apartment every day. A household meeting was organized and the house administrator was chosen in 2021. The contract was registered in Kaunas City Municipality as required.

The debt dispute arose for the period when a Kaunas resident did not live in the apartment – from 2019. By 2021 Sanermita applied to court, which claims to provide housing administration services to the residents of Akacijos villas under the contract, which was signed with the apartment builder Nuuva Capital.

“Santermita has entered into a service contract with Nuva Capital. He explained that this was done on the basis of a joint venture agreement. Consequently, residents ordered a « bust » to enter into a contract with Santermita. But it was not.

Residents were not invited to a meeting where they would have approved or obliged to sign a contract with Santermita. There is no minutes of the meeting of the population, nor « Nuva » or « Santermita ». The Housing Administration Agreement had to be registered, but this was not done either. Consequently, the Santermita and the Kriuva contract are unlawful, ”says R. Rainys.

Santermita estimates that Kaunas resulted in over 1.1 thousand. euros. The court also requested 5 % annual interest. In total, almost 1.4 thousand. euros.

Home: The apartment was not purchased and R. Rainys did not live in it, but Santermita claims debt for that period. / Photo by Regimantas Zakšensk

Didn’t listen to the population?

In the lawsuit, the court « Santermita » stated that the common use of the Acacia villas was owned on the basis of a joint venture agreement between the apartment buildings and other premises owners.

Joint Participants, represented by the authorized person Nuuva Capital and Sanermita, 2019. In February, he concluded a contract agreed on the administration, operation of the apartment building, the provision of utilities and other remunerated services.

« The court did not analyze the circumstances whether the contract between Nuuva Capital and Sanmatos could have been signed at all. Although the annex to the contract is the voting report of the population, neither side saved it. There is no such contract, they do not have it, ”said Ruslan Mazurov, a lawyer of Rainis.

According to him, the joint venture agreement could have been concluded in only two ways: when the majority of the population agrees or when the majority does not gather and organizes another meeting, and then, on the basis of a lower number of votes, the contract is signed. These steps were not done. According to the lawyer, Nuuva Capital did not submit to the court a contract that would oblige it to sign a contract with Santermita.

R. Rainys said he had obviously discovered the Santermatos receipts for the services provided when he started installing the apartment. The man says he sought to find out on what basis he has to pay « Santermatians ».

“They explain the contract with the Nuuva joint venture agreement. When asked to submit it, she told her to contact the Capital. I applied to the « City », but they sent back to Santermita. I did not receive anything and, in unfairly, unknowingly, I did not pay for the accounts, and I did not pay them anything, ”Rainys defended his position.

Kaunas is convinced that by 2021 No contracts for the administration of the apartment were concluded. Nor was the contracts for the administration of the house in public registers.

More importantly, the said contract states that it was signed by the participants of the joint activity, represented by the authorized person’s Nuuva Capital, which is a real estate seller.

Did not provide evidence

The court was filed a counterclaim by which Mr Rainys applied for 2019. the contract between Nuuva Capital and Sanmatos is invalidated from the moment of its conclusion. The basis of the request is that residents did not approve such a contract at any meeting.

We have already mentioned that the joint venture agreement has not been submitted to the court and explains that it is simply not saved. However, the case was filed in 2024. The decision of the Marijampolė District Court in a civil case, which is almost analogous to R. Rainis’ case, in April. In that case, the issue of the joint venture agreement was also dealt with, only the debtor’s other neighbor, R. Rainis, was only addressed.

There is no minutes of the meeting of the population, nor « Nuva » or « Santermita ».

The Marijampolė court was given an explanation of the Nuuva Capital regarding the joint venture agreement. Alleged in 2019 At the beginning of the 19th century an apartment building was completed at Kalnų str. 56a, Kaunas, construction. During the construction and after completing it, the apartments of the apartment building were gradually purchased by buyers for their personal or business interests.

Nuva Capital 2019 At the beginning of the 19th century, he owned most of the apartments in the house – more than 51 percent. From the moment of the end of the construction of an apartment building, the statutory obligation to carry out the maintenance of the structure.

For this reason, most apartment owners, or more precisely, those 51 percent. The Nuva Capital, which was still not sold and dependent, decided to organize the management of apartment buildings on the basis of a joint venture agreement, and to appoint the owner of most apartments as a member of the joint venture agreement.

In other words, Nuva Capital ordered Capital and signed an administration agreement with Santermita. However, a copy of the contract with all the annexes cannot be submitted, as from 2020 There were changes in the activities of the Nuuva Capital, as well as the management and authorized persons, and apartments of the apartment building were sold, and from 2021. The beginning of the Joint Operations Agreement is not valid.

“A dubious statement of Nuuva Capital regarding the non -preservation of a joint venture agreement. Such documents must be protected by legal persons in accordance with the rules of archiving documents. Secondly, the fact that such a contract was not registered in the Real Estate Register also raises doubts as to the conclusion of such a contract. Thirdly, the contract could not be concluded because it was not complied with the requirements of the law, ”explained Rainis’ lawyer.

It is surprising that the Rainis case for a debt court did not delve into the circumstances, adopted the Marijampolė court order, which was unfavorable to Rainis ‘neighbor, and was sufficient for a « bint » excuse for the unfortunate contract for the contract and did not satisfy Rainis’ counterclaim.

Claims to prove

Karolis Zubernis, a lawyer representing the Nuuva Capital case, expanded the grounds of signing the contract earlier by the fact that the contract with Sanermita could have been signed on the basis of a real estate purchase and sale agreement, which provided the seller to select the house administration and utilities. removal of household waste and territory maintenance.

Asked if, if necessary, he should prove that the contract that no one has, at all, replied, « There is no dispute that no joint venture agreement has been concluded. If a dispute over the existence of a contract, Nuva Capital would prove it by actual execution, witness testimony. »

Santermita provided a very similar answer to Kauno diena: « The court examined all the defendants’ arguments relating to the joint venture agreement and rejected these arguments as unfounded.

Santermita explained that Nuva Capital could have a contract with Santermita not only on the basis of a joint venture agreement but also under the contract of sale.

R. Mazurov, a lawyer representing R. Rainis, does not doubt that he would appeal against this Plungė Court’s decision, because the order of the Marijampolė court could not rely on: « In that case there was no claim for annulment of the contract.

According to the lawyer, the Civil Code provides for « that fraud, violence, economic pressure or real threat or a non -malicious agreement between the representative of one party, as well as a transaction a person has been forced to conclude under very useless conditions, may be invalidated by the victim. »

Inadequate calculation?

Attorney Mazurov also pointed out the amount of debt or claim, which is calculated for utility services.

Santermita filed with the court that the defendants owed the utilities for utilities. When you estimate the prices, it is clear that they are taking and increasing at one moment.

However, the contract between Santermita and Nuva Capital states that the price can only be changed by agreement between the parties. Santermita explains that prices have raised on the fact that the minimum wage has changed. Although I protested that the possibility of one -sided to change prices due to the changed minimum wage agreement was not provided for, the court did not see the problem in this case.

Consequently, there is no such thing that the Sanermita, which comes from an unclear basis, provides services for which the residents say, and thus pay more than the same conditions to other administrators. Cain determines the way they want, not as provided in the contract. But even this circumstance does not cause the court to question the amount of the claim, ”the lawyer wondered.

However, the cherry on the cake in this case became the amount of litigation costs. Santermita asked the debtor to pay not only the debt – almost 1.4 thousand. but also over 7 thousand. costs. Nuuva Capital estimated costs more modestly – over 2 thousand. euros.

« The costs of litigation depend on the procedural documents, the number of meetings, the price of the lawyer, etc., not the amount of the claim. Among other things, we state that one hearing did not take place because the plaintiffs themselves did not appear, so the case could not be heard and could not be delayed.

Santermita relied on the court’s interpretation that « the defendants themselves were recognized by the defendants, but in contradiction that the services provided to the plaintiff increased the costs incurred by the applicant and included a third party in the trial, further increasing the costs. »

However, Rainis’ lawyer emphasized that the claim was due to the debt that was due to the usual activity of the company, so did the professional would need to incur such costs to recover such a debt?

« In my opinion, the court had to assess whether it was the usual scenario of the company’s operations when you provide services and administer the house. What do they base that they had to incur such costs?

In addition, Mr Rainys claimed that he sought an agreement with Santermita, offered to sit down, consult real amounts for the services rendered and paid. “People were dissatisfied with the services provided by Santermita, organized a meeting and refused to Sanmatos. This case on the Santermita side is like revenge for termination, « the lawyer considered.

According to the lawyer, seven times higher costs testify to the fact that a larger market player who has some resources can afford to litigate. It is much harder and more expensive for a person to hire a lawyer. The incomparable things a company and a person can afford.