Tenancy law: The notice of termination under tenancy law must be addressed to all tenants in the case of a majority of persons

1. Facts and Background

The plaintiff landlady demanded the eviction of a flat from the defendant tenant. The defendant and her sister Carolin were heirs of their deceased mother, who had previously been the tenant of the flat. After the death of their mother, the defendants informed the landlady that they had entered into the tenancy in accordance with Section 563 BGB. The landlady objected to this declaration and terminated the tenancy. However, the notice of termination was only addressed to the defendant, not to her sister. As a result, the defendant refused to vacate the property, whereupon the landlady filed a lawsuit.

Decisions of previous instances

The district court dismissed the landlord's claim, as did the Berlin regional court. The district court based its decision on the fact that notice of termination should have been given to all heirs as they were continuing the tenancy together. However, the notice of termination was only addressed to the defendant, which in the court's opinion rendered the termination ineffective. The court also deemed a later notice of termination, which was addressed to both heirs, to be invalid as it was not given within the statutory period.

Decision of the Federal Court of Justice

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruled that the reasoning of the regional court did not stand up to legal scrutiny. The termination of 29 February 2012 was not invalid solely because it was only addressed to the defendant. The BGH found that the cancellation had also become effective vis-à-vis the defendant's sister, as the defendant had promised in the cancellation letter to forward it to her sister immediately. This forwarding was sufficient for the cancellation to also be legally effective against the second heir.

Reasons and consequences

The BGH went on to state that a cancellation must be issued to all heirs in accordance with Section 564 BGB. However, the Court of Appeal's interpretation of the letter of cancellation was incorrect. The letter contained a handwritten note indicating that it had been forwarded to the sister. In the opinion of the BGH, this was sufficient to give notice of cancellation to both heirs. Furthermore, it could be inferred from the behaviour of the defendant and her sister that the defendant was authorised to accept declarations on behalf of both.

Conclusion

The judgement of the Berlin Regional Court was overturned and the case was referred back for a new hearing. The decision of the BGH makes it clear that notices of cancellation must be addressed to all heirs in the event of inheritance, but a forwarding obligation within the community of heirs may be sufficient to make the cancellation effective. In addition, the BGH emphasises the importance of a clear interpretation of declarations of intent, taking into account the circumstances of the individual case.