Entscheidend ist vielmehr, ob die Vormiete materiell zulässig war. Dies kann insbesondere der Fall sein, wenn die höhere Miete durch Modernisierungsmaßnahmen nach § 556e Abs. 2 BGB gerechtfertigt war.

BGH-Urteil zur Vormiete und Mietpreisbremse

Der Entscheidung lag ein Mietverhältnis über eine Berliner Wohnung zugrunde. Die Mieter machten – unter anderem über ein Legal-Tech-Unternehmen – Ansprüche wegen eines behaupteten Verstoßes gegen die Mietpreisbremse geltend.

Die vereinbarte Miete entsprach der zuvor verlangten Vormiete. Die Vermieterin hatte sich bereits im Vormietverhältnis auf durchgeführte Modernisierungsmaßnahmen berufen, den damaligen Mieter hierüber jedoch nicht ordnungsgemäß informiert.

Streitentscheidend war daher, ob die Verletzung der Auskunftspflicht dazu führte, dass die erhöhte Vormiete bei der späteren Neuvermietung nicht berücksichtigt werden durfte.

Die Entscheidung des BGH

Der BGH hob das Berufungsurteil auf und verwies die Sache zur weiteren Aufklärung zurück.

Nach Auffassung des Gerichts kommt es für die Bestimmung der nach § 556e Abs. 1 BGB maßgeblichen Vormiete darauf an, ob der betreffende Ausnahmetatbestand der Sache nach vorlag und die vereinbarte Miethöhe deshalb materiell zulässig war.

Beruft sich der Vermieter auf Modernisierungsmaßnahmen, ist daher zu prüfen, ob diese tatsächlich durchgeführt wurden und ob sie die vereinbarte Miethöhe nach § 556e Abs. 2 BGB rechtfertigen konnten. Nach dieser Vorschrift darf die nach § 556d Abs. 1 BGB zulässige Miete unter bestimmten Voraussetzungen um den Betrag überschritten werden, der sich aus einer entsprechenden Modernisierungsmieterhöhung ergeben würde.

Welche Folgen hat ein Auskunftsverstoß?

Nach § 556g Abs. 1a BGB muss der Vermieter den Mieter vor dessen Vertragserklärung über bestimmte Umstände informieren. Dazu gehört insbesondere die Höhe der Vormiete oder – bei einer Berufung auf § 556e Abs. 2 BGB – der Hinweis auf Modernisierungsmaßnahmen innerhalb der letzten drei Jahre.

Erteilt der Vermieter die erforderliche Auskunft nicht ordnungsgemäß, kann er sich gegenüber dem konkret betroffenen Mieter zunächst nicht auf den jeweiligen Ausnahmetatbestand berufen. Das Gesetz ordnet für diesen Fall jedoch nicht automatisch die Unwirksamkeit der gesamten Mietpreisvereinbarung an.

Der Auskunftsverstoß betrifft damit grundsätzlich das konkrete Mietverhältnis, in dem die Auskunft nicht oder nicht ordnungsgemäß erteilt wurde. Für ein späteres Mietverhältnis bleibt entscheidend, ob die höhere Vormiete objektiv durch einen gesetzlichen Ausnahmetatbestand gerechtfertigt war.

Was muss das Berufungsgericht noch klären?

Der BGH konnte die Zulässigkeit der im konkreten Fall vereinbarten Miete noch nicht abschließend beurteilen.

Das Berufungsgericht muss insbesondere klären:

• ob die von der Vermieterin angeführten Modernisierungsmaßnahmen tatsächlich durchgeführt wurden,
• ob es sich um Modernisierungsmaßnahmen im Sinne des § 555b BGB handelte,
• welcher Erhöhungsbetrag sich daraus ergeben konnte und
• ob die vereinbarte Vormiete durch § 556e Abs. 2 BGB gerechtfertigt war.

Erst danach lässt sich abschließend beurteilen, ob die im späteren Mietverhältnis vereinbarte Miete gegen die Mietpreisbremse verstößt.

Bedeutung für Vermieter

Vermieter verlieren eine materiell zulässige höhere Vormiete nicht automatisch allein deshalb, weil sie den Vormieter nicht ordnungsgemäß über den einschlägigen Ausnahmetatbestand informiert haben.

Der sicherste Weg bleibt jedoch, die gesetzlichen Auskunftspflichten vollständig und in Textform zu erfüllen. Bei einer Berufung auf die Vormiete sollten die Höhe der Vormiete und bei einer Berufung auf Modernisierungsmaßnahmen die maßgeblichen Modernisierungsmaßnahmen nachvollziehbar dokumentiert und rechtzeitig mitgeteilt werden.

Außerdem sollten Modernisierungsmaßnahmen, die für die Miethöhe relevant sein sollen, durch Rechnungen, Berechnungen und eine nachvollziehbare Darstellung der einzelnen Maßnahmen belegt werden können.

Bedeutung für Nachmieter

Für Nachmieter reicht ein Auskunftsverstoß gegenüber dem Vormieter allein nicht aus, um die vereinbarte Miete erfolgreich anzugreifen.

Entscheidend ist vielmehr, ob die Vormiete tatsächlich zulässig war und ob die gesetzlichen Voraussetzungen des geltend gemachten Ausnahmetatbestands vorlagen. Bei Modernisierungsmaßnahmen müssen insbesondere Art, Umfang und Kosten der Maßnahmen sowie der daraus abzuleitende Erhöhungsbetrag geprüft werden.

Mieter können vom Vermieter grundsätzlich Auskunft über die Tatsachen verlangen, die für die Zulässigkeit der vereinbarten Miete maßgeblich sind, soweit diese Tatsachen nicht allgemein zugänglich sind und der Vermieter hierüber unschwer Auskunft geben kann.

Häufige Fragen zur Entscheidung

Führt ein Auskunftsverstoß gegenüber dem Vormieter zum Wegfall der Vormiete?

Nein. Ein Auskunftsverstoß führt nicht automatisch dazu, dass die höhere Vormiete bei der späteren Neuvermietung unberücksichtigt bleibt. Entscheidend ist, ob die Vormiete materiell zulässig war.

Kann eine Modernisierung eine höhere Vormiete rechtfertigen?

Ja. Wurden innerhalb der letzten drei Jahre vor Beginn des Mietverhältnisses Modernisierungsmaßnahmen durchgeführt, kann die zulässige Miete unter den Voraussetzungen des § 556e Abs. 2 BGB um einen modernisierungsbedingten Betrag überschritten werden.

Welche Auskunft muss der Vermieter erteilen?

Der Vermieter muss den Mieter vor dessen Vertragserklärung unter anderem über die Höhe der Vormiete oder über innerhalb der letzten drei Jahre durchgeführte Modernisierungsmaßnahmen informieren, wenn er sich auf den entsprechenden Ausnahmetatbestand berufen möchte.

Was muss ein Mieter bei einem möglichen Verstoß prüfen?

Zu prüfen sind insbesondere die Höhe der Vormiete, die Einhaltung der Auskunftspflichten, die tatsächliche Durchführung und der Umfang von Modernisierungsmaßnahmen sowie die Berechnung der zulässigen Miethöhe.

Fazit

Ein Auskunftsverstoß im Vormietverhältnis führt nicht automatisch dazu, dass die erhöhte Vormiete bei der späteren Neuvermietung außer Betracht bleibt.

Entscheidend ist, ob die Vormiete materiell zulässig war. Beruft sich der Vermieter auf Modernisierungsmaßnahmen, müssen diese und der hierauf entfallende Erhöhungsbetrag konkret geprüft werden.

Der BGH trennt damit klar zwischen der Auskunftspflicht des Vermieters und der materiellen Zulässigkeit der Vormiete. Eine unterlassene Auskunft gegenüber dem Vormieter beseitigt eine aufgrund von Modernisierungsmaßnahmen zulässige Vormiete nicht automatisch.

Beratung zur Mietpreisbremse und Vormiete

Sie sind Vermieter oder Mieter und haben Fragen zur Mietpreisbremse, zur Vormiete oder zu Modernisierungsmaßnahmen?

JUR | URBAN berät Sie im Miet- und Wohnungseigentumsrecht zur zulässigen Miethöhe und zur rechtssicheren Durchsetzung Ihrer Ansprüche.

Der Beitrag BGH zur Mietpreisbremse: Auskunftsfehler ändern Vormiete nicht automatisch erschien zuerst auf JUR LAW.

PREREQUISITES

A termination for personal use is the possibility of cancelling or terminating residential tenancy agreements. It is irrelevant whether the tenancy in question is a residential tenancy agreement, a usage agreement for a co-operative or commercial tenancy, a sub-tenancy agreement or a publicly subsidised flat. The only decisive factor is the contractual purpose agreed by the parties as living space.

The fact that the tenancy agreement was concluded for an indefinite period or that the tenants are only using the property as a holiday home does not prevent the termination for personal use from being effective. In terms of content, the termination for personal use must fulfil certain requirements to be effective.

JUSTIFIED INTEREST

In order for a termination for personal use to be effective, there must first be a legitimate interest in terminating the tenancy. A legitimate interest in this sense exists if the authorised party wishes to use the rented premises in question for themselves, a family member or a member of their household.

In principle, the authorised party in this sense is the landlord, which is why the landlord must also give notice of termination for personal use in order for it to be effective.In principle, the authorised party can also be represented, in this case in accordance with the rules of representation pursuant to Sections 164 ff. BGB. A legitimate interest in accordance with Section 574 II BGB requires that the landlord seriously needs the rented premises in question for himself, a family member or a member of his household.

The mere desire to live in the rented premises is not sufficient for a legitimate interest; rather, there must be comprehensible reasons on which the termination for personal use is based. From the landlord’s subjective point of view, the property in dispute must be more suitable for his residential purposes than the previous living space. The landlord’s subjective view alone determines what is considered more suitable and appropriate. The courts will then only carry out an overall assessment of all circumstances in the individual case.

DIVERGENCE OF LANDLORD AND OWNER STATUS

In practice, it is not uncommon for the owner and landlord positions to diverge. In such cases, it should be noted that the circumstances justifying the termination for personal use must nevertheless lie in the person of the landlord and not in that of the owner.

In cases of transfer of title, for example after the acquisition of a property or through inheritance, the entry in the land register is decisive. The legal successor takes the place of the original landlord after entry in the land register, in accordance with Section 566 (1) BGB. A personal use cancellation that takes place before this entry in the land register is therefore generally invalid.

However, it should be noted that in some cases the legal successor may be able to exercise certain organisational rights, such as a termination, even before entry in the land register. In such a case, however, the circumstances justifying termination in the form of a legitimate interest must also lie in the person of the current landlord – which is likely to be quite rare in the case of flat purchases, for ex

Early termination

A purely precautionary termination is an abuse of rights and therefore inadmissible. The termination for personal use must be closely related to the landlord’s legitimate interest and may not be issued purely as a precautionary measure.

There is no provisional termination if the justified interest is presented in a serious and concrete manner and this is to be realised at least in a foreseeable period of time. The current life plans of the entitled person or intended modernisation measures for the property after the termination are considered sufficient as a foreseeable period

The landlord must intend to use the property as living space; commercial or other use does not constitute a legitimate interest. However, the fact that the premises are only to be used temporarily for residential purposes, as will regularly be the case for the duration of a relative’s studies, does not prevent the landlord from terminating the tenancy for personal use.

If the landlord has several properties to choose from, he has the right to choose which tenancy he wishes to terminate for personal use. The courts do not weigh up whether the choice of another tenancy would have been more appropriate, as it is solely the landlord’s subjective view that matters.

defence options

For tenants who receive a notice of termination for personal use, this often results in an unexpectedly high financial and personal burden. Due to the increase in rents, it is usually difficult to find a comparable, affordable flat in the neighbourhood, meaning that tenants have to leave their previous social environment.

In the case of tenancies listed in Section 549 II BGB, the tenant is not protected against termination. If the flat in question is located in a building with only 2 flats, one of which is occupied by the landlord himself, there is at least limited protection against termination in accordance with Section 573a BGB.

In principle, it is possible for the tenant to lodge an objection to the termination for personal use and to base this on a case of hardship in accordance with Sections 574, 574a BGB. According to this, the tenant can leave the contractual relationship if the termination of the tenancy is unreasonable for him, his family or a member of his household. This determination is made on the basis of an overall assessment, taking into account the legitimate interests of the landlord in each individual case. The objection is mandatory for the defence of a termination of personal use, as otherwise the tenant’s interests cannot be reviewed.

JUR | URBAN ADVISES YOU ON TENANCY LAW. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

CONTACT US NoW.

Der Beitrag Termination for personal use erschien zuerst auf JUR LAW.

Definition des Vermieterpfandrechts

The landlord’s lien deals with the securing of claims that the landlord has against the tenant and is regulated in §§ 562-563d BGB. It only exists for claims arising from the contractual relationship between the tenant and the landlord. These claims can arise, for example, from missing rent or ancillary cost payments or from claims for damages. It is also possible to secure claims for payment of compensation for use following late return of the rented property in accordance with Section 546a BGB. The landlord’s lien applies to both residential and commercial property.

Voraussetzungen für das Entstehen des Vermieterpfandrechts

Die erste Voraussetzung stellt ein Mietverhältnis dar. Dieses muss zu dem Zeitpunkt bestehen (§ 562 Abs. 1 S. 1 BGB) und ein wirksamer Mietvertrag zwischen dem Vermieter und Mieter geschlossen worden sein. Zusätzlich muss der Mieter sich im Zahlungsverzug befinden. Hierbei ist es irrelevant, ob sich der Zahlungsverzug auf die Miete oder Nebenkosten bezieht.

Nur Sachen, die körperliche Gegenstände im Sinne des § 90 BGB darstellen, können durch das Vermieterpfandrecht verpfändet werden. Die Gegenstände müssen das Eigentum des Mieters sein und sich im Mietobjekt befinden. Wenn dies nicht der Fall ist, ist eine Anwendung des Vermieterpfandrechts ausgeschlossen. Ebenfalls sind Sachen des Untervermieters nicht pfändbar, da sie nicht im alleinigen Eigentum des Hauptmieters stehen. Aus diesen Gründen ist eine Verpfändung von Sachen des Untermieters grundsätzlich  ausgeschlossen. Allerdings ist es für den Vermieter möglich, Informationen über das Eigentum des Mieters zu fordern.

Nichtsdestotrotz besteht eine zeitliche Beschränkung hinsichtlich der Entschädigungsforderungen. Um die Interessen des Mieters zu schützen ist gemäß § 562 Abs. 2 BGB eine Geltendmachung des Vermieterpfandrechts für eventuell zukünftige Entschädigungsforderungen nicht möglich. Es sind demnach nur Mieten aus dem laufendem und das darauffolgenden Mietjahr vom Vermieterpfandrecht umfasst. Insofern ist der Zeitpunkt entscheidend, ab wann die Forderungen entstanden sind.

Was kann gepfändet werden?

Der Vermieter kann Sammlerstücke, Schmuck, Kunstwerke oder elektronische Geräte, die nicht der Ausübung einer Erwerbstätigkeit dienen pfänden. Der Vermieter kann von seinem Pfandrecht bei unpfändbaren Sachen gemäß § 562 Abs. 1 S. 2 BGB nicht in Gebrauch nehmen. Einige der unpfändbaren Sachen werden in § 811 Abs. 1 Nr. 1-8 ZPO aufgezählt. Zu den unpfändbaren Sachen zählen:

• Geräte, Materialien oder Mittel, die zum Arbeiten benötigt werden
• Persönliche Dokumente
• Kleidung
• Tiere
• Personenkraftwagen
• Gegenstände die keinen Wert besitzen
• Gegenstände des alltäglichen Lebens

Erlöschen des Vermieterpfandrechts

562a BGB regelt das Erlöschen des Vermieterpfandrechts und stellt hierbei Rahmenbedingungen auf. Wenn Gegenstände aus dem Mietobjekt entfernt werden, erlischt infolgedessen das Vermieterpfandrecht. Erfolgt die Entfernung des Gegenstandes ohne Wissen oder Einwilligung des Vermieters, erlischt das Vermieterpfandrecht nicht. Erlangt der Vermieter Kenntnis über das Entfernen der Gegenstände innerhalb des Mietobjekts, muss dieser gemäß § 562b Abs. 2 BGB den Anspruch gerichtlich geltend machen. Geschieht dies nicht innerhalb eines Monats, erlischt das Vermieterpfandrecht. Des Weiteren bleibt das Pfandrecht bestehen, bis die gepfändeten Gegenstände im Rahmen der Zwangsvollstreckung verkauft werden. Der Erlös aus diesem Verkauf dient weiterhin als Sicherheit für die Forderungen des Vermieters.“ Wird das Mietverhältnis zwischen beiden Parteien beendet, kann sich kein Vermieterpfandrecht daraus ergeben.

Weitere Gründe für die Erlöschung des Vermieterpfandrechts können sein:

• Aufhebungsvertrag
• Forderungen aus dem Mietverhältnis sind erloschen
• Vermieter wird durch Erwerb Eigentümer des Gegenstandes

Rechtsfolgen

Der Vermieter kann gemäß §§ 1228, 1257 BGB die Gegenstände des Mieters weiterverkaufen und aus dem Erlös seine Ansprüche tilgen. Ist der Anspruch des Vermieters fällig, kann dieser die Aushändigung des Gegenstandes durch den Mieter verlangen.

JUR | URBAN BERÄT SIE IM Gewerbe– und WohnraumMietrecht. HABEN SIE FRAGEN?

KONTAKTIEREN SIE UNS JETZT.

Der Beitrag Landlord’s right of lien – general overview erschien zuerst auf JUR LAW.

The landlord of an apartment block sued a tenant to evict him from his flat. The landlord terminated various tenancy agreements in an apartment building on the grounds of personal use for the beneficiary. The tenancy agreement of the defendant tenant was concluded for a limited period from 21/05/2019 to 31/05/2020. There was an option to increase the rent as of 1 June 2020. During this period, there were various disagreements between the tenant and the landlord, as well as a repair action due to excessive lead content in the drinking water. However, the local court ruled that there was no effective time limit. In August 2021, the plaintiff gave notice of termination to the defendant on the grounds of personal use, although a detached flat in the same residential building was vacant. According to the landlord, however, this was unsuitable for his nephew who was moving in.

IS THE TERMINATION FOR PERSONAL USE SUFFICIENTLY JUSTIFIED?

For a termination in accordance with § 573 III BGB, there must be a justified interest. According to the Federal Court of Justice, this is the case if it is clear from the letter of cancellation that the landlord wishes to let the rooms to a person who needs them or wishes to occupy them himself and there are reasonable grounds for doing so. These reasons are reasonable if they show that the landlord has a legitimate interest in using the property. Stating ‘personal use’ or ‘other use’ as a reason is not sufficient. In principle, reasons for termination can be kept more general and do not have to be stated in detail to the tenant. The background to this is that the landlord’s pursuit of interests should not be made unreasonably difficult. Nevertheless, the grounds for termination must be sufficiently comprehensible and plausible for the tenant.

AG HAMBURG-MITTE (DISTRICT COURT), JUDGEMENT OF 04.05.2022 – 49 C 438/21

In its judgement of 4 May 2022 – 49C 438/21, the AG Hamburg ruled that the termination of personal use must be sufficiently justified. On the one hand, this was contradicted by the fact that various flats of a similar size had become vacant in the same residential building in recent years, often rented out for a limited period of time. In addition, in these cases the landlord had already registered his own requirements for these flats beforehand, and had ultimately repeatedly let them to other tenants. The landlord’s justification that the flat was unfavourable in terms of floor location and too large was not sufficient for the Hamburg District Court to justify a legitimate interest in using the property. The action for eviction was dismissed.

JUR | URBAN ADVISES YOU ON TENANCY LAW. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

CONTACT US NOW.

Der Beitrag THE TERMINATION FOR PERSONAL USE MUST BE SUFFICIENTLY JUSTIFIED erschien zuerst auf JUR LAW.

FACTS

The defendant was a subtenant of a flat in an apartment block. The main tenants of the flat since 1985 were the defendant’s sister and person C. The owner of the property transferred 1/5 of her co-ownership share to B in 1990. After the owner’s death, 4/5 of her co-ownership share was transferred to the heir A. In 1996, the division of the property was declared in accordance with § 8 WEG and A and B were entered in the land register as co-owners in 1997. In the same year, B transferred 1/5 of his co-ownership share to A, and A was also entered in the land register as the sole owner of the apartment building.

After the death of A, A’s sole heir concluded a supplementary agreement to the tenancy agreement of 20 December 1985 with the defendant, her sister and C in 2014. According to this agreement, C left the tenancy agreement and the defendant entered into the tenancy as the main tenant. In 2015, the defendant’s sister died and her husband P became her sole heir. The residential property was transferred to O- GmbH in 2015 and a land register entry was also made in the same year. In 2018, the plaintiffs then acquired the residential property in the disputed flat, and in December 2018 they gave notice of termination for personal use. In the appeal proceedings, the plaintiffs are seeking to have the judgement of the local court, which had initially upheld the plaintiffs’ action for eviction, reinstated.

RESTRICTION ON TERMINATION IN THE EVENT OF FLAT CONVERSION

The central provision of the judgement is Section 577a BGB. This standard contains a restriction on cancellation following the conversion of a rented flat into a condominium. After the conversion, a blocking period of 3 years applies to the assertion of justified interests of the purchaser. Such a legitimate interest may result from a termination for personal use or (under strict conditions) also from a termination for realisation. The lock-up period can be extended from 3 to 10 years in regions with a tight housing market. The main reason for extending the lock-up period is to ensure that the population is adequately supplied with rental accommodation on reasonable terms and to protect them from losing their homes. Already tight housing markets should be relieved as far as possible or at least not put under further strain. Berlin has had a tight housing market for some time and therefore made use of this regulation in 2013. The extension of the lock-up period is not limited to districts, but applies consistently throughout Berlin.

WHEN DOES THE LOCK-UP PERIOD START?

The BGH bases this on the time of the first acquisition of the residential property. Pursuant to Section 577a I BGB, the lock-up period begins with the first sale of the previously formed residential property to the purchaser. This first sale took place here for the first time with the acquisition of ownership by M-GmbH and its entry in the land register in 2015. Although the transfer of B’s co-ownership share to A constitutes a legal sale of a property share, this is not a sale to the purchaser within the meaning of Section 577a I BGB. The court justified this with the lack of a change of landlord. The purpose of the standard is to protect the tenant from terminations for personal use, which are to be feared due to a change of ownership and the (regular) associated change of landlord. However, the tenant’s risk of termination (for personal use) has not increased significantly due to the acquisition of the co-ownership share in this case, which is why this point in time should not be taken as the first acquisition.

JUR | URBAN ADVISES YOU ON TENANCY LAW AND LANDLORD AND TENANT LAW.

DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

Der Beitrag EFFECTIVENESS OF THE BERLIN TERMINATION PROTECTION CLAUSE erschien zuerst auf JUR LAW.

In 2017, a buyer acquired an already rented apartment building with a notarised purchase contract. At the end of 2017 to the beginning of 2018, there was a significant increase in fresh water consumption due to a burst water pipe. Due to the change of ownership, the city reassessed the fees for the calendar year 2018 with a wastewater notice. The landlord received a statement for the amount of fresh water supplied to him, which was conspicuously high due to the burst water pipe. The seller did not inform the buyer of the statement received. The buyer of the property then received a notice at the beginning of 2019, in which the property details were newly determined and the sewage charges were five times higher than in previous years. The buyer then filed a claim for damages against the landlord. He sought reimbursement of the difference between the newly calculated and the “normal” sewage fees.

Breach of a non-performance-related collateral duty

The starting point of the proceedings is the question: Does the seller have to provide information about a burst water pipe or not? The seller could have violated a non-performance-related secondary obligation if he had a duty to inform the buyer. A contractual obligation exists between the buyer and the seller by virtue of the purchase contract for the property. This obligation also gives rise to non-performance-related secondary obligations. Such secondary obligations are duties of disclosure and fiduciary duties. These duties are based on § 241 II BGB and also apply post-contractually. According to § 241 II BGB, the debtor is obliged to take into account the interests of his contractual partner that are worthy of protection. Which interests are worthy of protection is to be determined in consideration of good faith according to § 242 BGB. The seller is in a position of power, since he has knowledge and information to which the buyer has no access and which affect his interest in performance and integrity. In order to balance this position of power, the seller is already obliged to inform the buyer sufficiently about all relevant external circumstances when acquiring the property.

Decision of the Cologne Regional Court

In its judgement of 06.12.2021 – 7 O 26/ 21, the Regional Court of Cologne ruled: The seller must provide information about a burst water pipe. A burst pipe resulting in an increased waste water notice is a relevant external circumstance. The buyer’s interest in performance and integrity is impaired by this circumstance. Therefore, there is a duty of notification and clarification for this circumstance according to § 241 II BGB, which the seller has violated. In the present case, the seller is obliged to compensate the buyer for damages. At the latest when he received the notice of the sewage charges, he had positive knowledge of the extent of the burst water pipe and should have informed the buyer about it.

JUR | URBAN ADVISES YOU ON REAL ESTATE LAW. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

CONTACT US NOW.

Der Beitrag Seller must provide information about a burst water pipe erschien zuerst auf JUR LAW.

In its judgement of 24.05.2022 – 65 S 189/ 21 and its judgement of 09.06.2022 – 67 S 50/22 the Berlin Regional Court had to decide on the permissible amount of a graduated rent and the amount of a re-letting rent. The landlords had used the Berlin rent index 2021 to justify the rents. The dispute was whether the Mietspiegel 2021 is effective and can therefore be used as a justification at all.

Formal means of justification

In principle, rent increases must be justified in accordance with § 558a Abs. 2 BGB. The background to this legal obligation to give reasons is that the tenant is to be given information about the factual reasons for the rent increases. However, the means of justification listed there are not exhaustive. Rent rolls are one means that can be used to justify a rent increase. However, a prerequisite for this is that they are effective.

No effective update of a rent index

The reason given for the invalidity of the 2021 rent index was that the 2019 rent index was already an update of the 2017 rent index. An update of the 2021 rent index as a qualified rent index would thus be excluded. In the opinion of the 65th Civil Chamber, the amount of the maximum re-letting rent pursuant to the §§ 556d, 557a IV BGB can nevertheless be justified according to the Berlin rent index 2021. It regards the rent index of 2021 as a simple rent index dran up by updating the rent index 2019.In the opinion of the court, every new version as well as every update of a qualified representative list of rents always represents a new version of a simple representative list of rents.  Accordingly, the rent index of 2021 is an update, but the first update of a simple rent index and therefore permissible.

Local comparable rent

This becomes relevant when considering whether the old or the new law can be used to determine the amount of rent. On 01.01.2020, the assessment period, which forms the basis for the term “local comparative rent”, was changed. The assessment period was increased from four to six years for changed new and existing rents. However, it is clear from Art. 229 § 50 II EGBGB that rent indexes with the old assessment period continue to apply and accordingly the old law is also applied. The prerequisite for Art. 229 § 50 II EGBGB is that an effective rent index already exists. Due to the effectiveness of the 2021 rent index, the old law applies during its two-year term in accordance with Art. 229 §50 II EGBGB. Die Bestimmung der ortsüblichen Vergleichsmiete wird demnach ein vierjähriger Betrachtungszeitraum berücksichtigt.

Consequences for tenants and landlords

The decisive question is, of course, what consequences this decision has on both the tenant’s and the landlord’s side.

The answer is: For both parties, this has predominantly positive legal consequences. On the landlord’s side, a rent increase is not tied to an unreasonable effort and associated costs. A rent increase can thus be justified on the basis of the Mietspiegel 2021. Otherwise, a rent increase would require expert opinions or the use of comparative flats. This procedure is associated with a great deal of effort, time and expense. This approach would have brought disadvantages on the tenant side, such as stronger claims by landlords against tenants. These claims would also have been more difficult to control.

For landlords this means: The Berlin Rent Index 2021 justifies rent increases and can thus be used as a means of justification.

JUR | URBAN ADVISES YOU IN residential tenancy LAW. dO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

CONTACT US NOW.

Der Beitrag Berlin Regional Court: Berlin Rent Index 2021 (Mietspiegel) as justification erschien zuerst auf JUR LAW.

Facts of the case

A tenant demanded that his landlord install a handrail on a staircase located in the rented property. In the tenant’s opinion, using the stairs without a handrail was not without significant health risks. The landlord countered that when the tenancy agreement was concluded the stairs had already been without handrails. By signing the tenancy agreement, he had accepted the condition of the rented property.

Health Hazard in rented property

In principle, the landlord has the obligation under § 535 I 2 BGB to provide the rented property in a condition suitable for use in accordance with the contract and to maintain it in this condition during the rental period. In this case, there is no agreement on the condition of the rented property in accordance with the contract, therefore it has to be determined by way of interpretation, taking into account good faith pursuant to §§ 133, 157 BGB in conjuction to § 242 BGB what both parties agreed on and whether the condition of the rented property corresponds to this agreement. Due to the missing handrails of the stairs, there is an increased risk of falling and thus a health hazard based on the condition of the stairs.

Existence of a defect and its removal

The two parties therefore agreed, at least implicitly, that the rented property was free of impairments that were harmful or dangerous to health. With the absence of the handrail, this was not the case and there was a defect. According to § 535 I 2 BGB the landlord’s main obligation is and remains to remedy the defect, in this case the health-endangering condition. However, it has not yet been conclusively clarified how the unconditional taking into use by the tenant affects the claim to remedy the defect. The appeal to the Federal Supreme Court was admitted.

JUR | URBAN ADVISES YOU ON TENANCY LAW. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

KONTAKTIEREN SIE UNS JETZT.

Der Beitrag Health hazard in rented property always to be remedied erschien zuerst auf JUR LAW.

Facts of the case

The landlord of several rental flats in Bremen increased the monthly rent to be paid for the rental flats concerned as a result of modernisation measures. He sent a rent increase letter to the tenants of the affected flats, to which a cost summary and calculation of the rent increase was attached. In this cost summary, the total modernisation costs, the individual modernisation measures, the apportionable modernisation cost share and the resulting rent increase were broken down. Three plaintiffs of rented flats in Bremen then sued, as they considered the rent increase to be invalid for formal reasons. They also demanded repayment of the already overpaid rent.

FORMAL REQUIREMENTS FOR A RENT INCREASE DECLARATION

As a general rule, rent increases are subject to formal requirements, such as compliance with the text form, an explanation, as well as a statement of cost accounting. The purpose of this is to distinguish between modernisation measures that can be apportioned according to § 555b BGB and maintenance measures that cannot be apportioned according to § 555a BGB. In addition, the tenant is to be granted the possibility of being able to check on a qualified basis whether a claim by the landlord is justified.

This also leads to the tenant being able to understand the rent increase and provides the tenant with a basis for further control if necessary. However, problems can arise here, as it has not been conclusively clarified to what extent the modernisation measures must be itemised and how high the hurdles must be for such a rent increase.

DECISION OF THE FEDERAL SUPREME COURT

The Court of Appeal upheld the tenants’ claims on the grounds that, in the case of comprehensive modernisation measures covering several buildings or carried out outside the tenant’s flat, a more detailed breakdown of costs according to “trades” must be provided pursuant to § 559b I 1 BGB. These are cost items that list the exact individual work steps.

The VIII. A rent increase declaration does not require a breakdown according to trades. The argument for this is, on the one hand, that excessively high formal requirements for rent increases deprive landlords of the incentive to undertake modernisation measures at all. However, these are desired by the legislator and, in the long run, are probably also in the interest of current and future tenants. According to the Federal Supreme Court, even a precise breakdown of the costs is not necessary, the disclosure of the total amount and the maintenance costs is sufficient to make the rent increase plausible for the tenant. On the other hand, it should be noted that even in the absence of a breakdown according to trades, the tenant was always entitled to a comprehensive right to evidence and information. Whether the rent increase was justified in the specific case or whether the tenants were entitled to a repayment claim due to overpaid rent was not to be examined by the BGH, this is now the task of the Regional Court of Bremen.

JUR | URBAN ADVISES YOU ON TENANCY LAW. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
CONTACT US NOW.

Der Beitrag Mietrecht: Mieterhöhungserklärung erfordert keine Aufteilung nach Gewerken erschien zuerst auf JUR LAW.

By way of eviction enforcement, the eviction and surrender of an immovable object are to be obtained by means of state coercive measures. A classic case is a tenant who does not leave the flat voluntarily after termination and must be evicted by the landlord.

Pursuant to section 885 of the Code of Civil Procedure, eviction is carried out by the bailiff by removing the debtor from possession and placing the creditor in possession. The creditor thus receives an empty object.  Movable property that is not part of the execution is removed by the bailiff and handed over to the debtor. Especially in the case of rented flats, the costs for the creditor are very high in case of doubt. He must first pay for the costs of the removal of the objects and their safekeeping, in addition to the costs of the bailiff. Even if the creditor is basically entitled to reimbursement from the debtor, i.e. the former tenant, the chance of full repayment is rarely given, especially in the case of tenants without means.

So-called “BERLIN MODEL”

In order to reduce costs, the so-called Berlin eviction model has developed. This is because it has become apparent, especially in enforcement practice, that the creditor regularly does not get the costs of enforcement enforced against the debtor because the debtor is not able to pay.

In the case of a Berlin eviction, there is no eviction in the true sense of the word. The debtor can no longer enter the flat because the bailiff changes the lock. Since 2013, the Berlin model of eviction enforcement has been stipulated as a so-called limited enforcement order in section 885a ZPO. Here, the landlord exercises the landlord’s lien stipulated in § 562 BGB. Freely visible objects are to be documented by the bailiff for the purpose of preserving evidence. The costs for the creditor are limited to the advance payment of the bailiff.

So-Called “HAMBURGER MODEL”

The Hamburg model of eviction enforcement takes place in two phases.

In the first phase, the bailiff changes the locks. After setting a deadline of two weeks, the debtor has the opportunity to settle his debts. In the second phase, the eviction hearing takes place. However, the new flat key is not initially handed over to the landlord, but to an employee of a commissioned forwarding company. When the actual eviction takes place, the bailiff inspects the flat and takes a report and photos of the seizable objects. Subsequently, all attachable items are stored by a forwarding agency. If the tenant has found a new flat by then, the items will be delivered there. The landlord only receives the keys when the flat has been completely vacated.

So-Called “FRANKFURT MODEL”

The Frankfurt model of eviction is carried out by the creditor himself, but subject to conditions imposed by the bailiff. This procedure significantly reduces the costs for the creditor. The landlord must store the tenant’s furnishings in rooms that are accessible to the bailiff. If the landlord stores the furniture himself, he will also be liable for any damage. Precise documentation is therefore advantageous in this procedure.

JUR | URBAN ADVISES YOU ON EVICTION ENFORCEMENT. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

CONTACT US NOW.

Der Beitrag Tenancy Law: Enforcement of eviction of a tenant erschien zuerst auf JUR LAW.