Where Are Cytis Located Maplestory

Strict liability of the lessor with "cold" house clearance


The Federal Court has taken the subsequent decision on the liability of the landlord if arbitrary evictions.


The plaintiff was a tenant located in Wiesbaden apartment of the defendant. From February 2005 he was absent for several months in places with unknown residence and was reported by relatives as missing. After the rent had not been paid for the months of March and April 2005, the landlord announced the lease without notice. In May 2005 she opened the apartment and took her in possession. Here, they disposed of some of the furnishings, another part of the things they found stored away with him. Based on an expert opinion

the tenant has asked for him missing after he claimed during the evacuation or stolen, damaged or soiled items damages from € 62,000 plus reimbursement of its expert fees. The district court dismissed the action in that regard. The district court dismissed the appeal of the tenant.

directed against the revision of the tenant was successful. Who among other responsible for the Housing Tenancy Eighth Civil Division of the Federal Court held that the landlord for the consequences of such clearance shall be liable. The not by a judicial track covered, unauthorized possession of a home and the power of their own clearing set by the landlord of illegal self-help (§ 229 BGB *); whereas the case even when, due to the current whereabouts of the tenant is unknown and a contractual right of possession of the tenant notice no longer exists. The landlord must also in these cases - where appropriate, after public notification of the eviction notice - and obtain an eviction action under this title. Does a landlord instead through a so-called "cold" a prohibited self-help eviction, he is strict liability under § 231 BGB ** for any resulting damage required.

is from this liability in particular an unauthorized disposal of the collected objects found in the apartment. For the owner who takes an apartment without the presence of legal title to property is true for the objects in it a duty of care. Since the tenant taking possession of his apartment is unaware and therefore is not in a position to exercise his rights himself, continues to belong to this duty of care of the landlord that he draws up an inventory and establishing the value of the items therein. If he does this obligation is not sufficient for, he has the claim of the tenant To disprove that certain objects had been lost during the evacuation or damaged, and prove that they had a lower value than claimed by the tenant. This has ignored the district court and the tenant law in the pleading and proof in the Stock and condition imposed in the vacated apartment existing articles.

has Additionally, the district court also spans a damage estimate on the appropriate requirements. If - as in the case decided - fixed the alleged claim for damages on the merits, and its height is questionable, the claim must be dismissed not always complete. The court must judge in this case rather in its sole discretion, whether at least the minimum estimate of a loss is possible. This is not the case here. The matter was therefore remanded to the district court so that the necessary findings on the value of stock and can be made during the clearing house if the plaintiff lost or damaged items.

* § 229 BGB: Support

Who takes away the purpose of self-help a cause, destroyed or damaged or who for the purpose of self-help a debtor, which the flight is suspicious, are arrested or the resistance of the party liable to an action, to tolerate this is required to eliminate is not acting unlawfully when using magistrate is not to have a timely and without immediate intervention, the risk that the achievement would frustrate the claim or much more difficult.

** § 231 BGB: Erroneous self-help
person who commits any of the acts listed in § 229 in the mistaken belief that exists for the exclusion of illegality necessary conditions are, is the other part to pay damages, even if the mistake not due to negligence.

Case of 14 July 2010 - VIII ZR 45/09
AG Wiesbaden, Judgement of 15 May 2008 - 91 C 5169/06
LG Wiesbaden - Case of 21 January 2009 - 3 S 44/08

Matthias W. Kroll, LL.M.
lawyer

DR Nieto & KROLL LAWYERS
HAMBURG