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.

This case concerns a contentious issue in neighbourhood law: the emergency vehicle access route to trapped properties. Of particular relevance is the scope of the right of emergency access and whether the neighbour is obliged to tolerate it. The plaintiff is the owner of a trapped property and wanted to use the existing access road on his neighbour’s property to access his property. The defendant neighbour had initially tolerated this, but then erected a blockade that allowed access on foot but prevented access by car. The neighbour referred the plaintiff to an alternative use of access roads on the neighbouring property and justified this with the shorter distance to the trapped property. In this case, the Higher Regional Court of Schleswig had to deal with the question of whether the right to an emergency access route also requires the use of the emergency access route by a motor vehicle to be tolerated. If this was the case, it had to be discussed whether the vehicle could only be driven on for the purpose of making deliveries or whether it could also be used as a passageway to park on the imprisoned property.

SCOPE OF THE EMERGENCY RIGHT OF WAY

If a property lacks any connection to a public path, then it is a trapped property. The property is then surrounded or trapped by the neighbouring properties. The right of emergency access is always relevant in practice and in this case it was dealt with by the Higher Regional Court of Schleswig. In its judgement of 01.04.2022 – 1 U 71/21, the court defined the scope of the right of emergency access in more detail. The court used Section 917 (1) BGB as the basis for its decision. The purpose of the standard is to ensure the proper use of land. Proper use is to be assessed on the basis of an objective standard with regard to an appropriate, economic use of the property. The main criteria for this are the type of use and the size of the property. The personal needs of the owner or the authorised user as well as the type and manner of previous use are irrelevant for the assessment. A right of emergency access can also arise retrospectively if the type of use of the property changes.

NEIGHBOUR’S DUTY TO TOLERATE

As described above, the scope of the neighbour’s duty to tolerate is based on necessity. With reference to the decision at first instance, the OLG recognised that the owner must at least be able to deliver larger items or everyday products. Restrictions in this respect only arise from the nature of the matter if the local conditions prevent a delivery (impassable terrain or the structural conditions on site make a delivery impossible). Accordingly, the owner of a trapped property can demand the granting of a right of emergency access from his neighbour, which also includes the right to drive motor vehicles. Granting only a ‘pedestrian’ right of emergency access is insufficient, as in this case. This duty to tolerate includes both driving for deliveries and parking on the enclosed property. A maximum speed limit of 5 km/h when using the emergency lane is intended to protect the legal interests of the neighbour against whom the claim is made in order to prevent damage to the ground and noise pollution.

WHICH NEIGHBOUR CAN BE CLAIMED AGAINST?

Which neighbour is obliged to tolerate the right of emergency access is determined in accordance with Section 917 (1) BGB. According to the OLG, it is not exclusively the distance to the property that is caught that is important. Rather, as is so often the case, the interests of the parties must be weighed up. This weighing of interests takes into account the individual burdens on the respective property or for the respective neighbour. Individual burdens are determined, for example, by whether access roads already exist on the neighbouring properties or whether such access roads would have to be created first, and whether the concept of the residential complex provides for proper use of the property even without access by car.

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

CONTACT US NOW.

Der Beitrag Neighbourhood law: Toleration of the emergency right of way 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 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

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.