District Court of Leonberg, February 3, 2015, Case No.: 4 C 469/14
The handover protocol, which is created during the return of a rental apartment from the tenant to the landlord, is intended, according to the highest court rulings, to securely document the condition of the rental property for both parties.
The landlord should note that the handover protocol constitutes a so-called negative acknowledgment of debt. Thus, if the landlord confirms in the handover protocol that the rental property has been returned by the tenant in accordance with the contract, this extinguishes any claims of the landlord, making it impossible for the landlord to later dispute that the rental property was in contractually compliant condition at the time of return. The only exceptions are so-called hidden defects, which only become apparent to the landlord after the apartment has been returned.
In the case discussed here, the District Court of Leonberg had to decide whether the landlord was allowed to withhold the security deposit, even though no damages had been recorded in the handover protocol.
Facts of the Case:
The apartment was described as contractually compliant in the handover protocol.
The plaintiffs were tenants of an apartment rented out by the defendant. The parties were in dispute over the release of a security deposit after the end of the lease and the handover of the apartment.
According to the handover protocol signed by both parties, the apartment was returned „in a contractually compliant condition, including the return of all keys.“ "in contractual condition including return of all keys" have been returned.
The defendant had merely handwritten in the protocol that „some walls were not properly painted.“ "some walls not painted properly" had been made.
Due to mold discovered later, the landlord refused to return the deposit.
However, the defendant subsequently refused to release the security deposit because the new tenant had discovered mold in the bathroom, resulting in expert costs of €464.70 and mold removal costs of €500.00.
Additionally, the terrace door was allegedly damaged, incurring further costs of €33.72. The landlord also cited payment of a proportional share of costs for unfinished cosmetic repairs according to the contractual clause, which allegedly equaled at least the amount of the deposit.
Decision of the District Court of Leonberg:
The court sided with the tenants and recognized their claim to the deposit.
The District Court of Leonberg agreed with the plaintiffs and ruled that they were entitled to the release of the disputed savings book. The defendant had no claim against the plaintiffs for the payment of the settlement amount mentioned in § 18 of the lease agreement or any other damages.
If a handover protocol exists, it constitutes a negative acknowledgment of debt regarding the condition of the apartment. The landlord is barred from asserting rights regarding defects not noted in the protocol.
The apartment handover protocol constitutes a negative acknowledgment of debt.
This negative acknowledgment of debt covers not only defects in terms of damages to the apartment, which could later be claimed as compensation but also other claims related to the condition of the apartment, such as those involving cosmetic repairs.
The settlement clause would apply if the apartment was not properly returned by the tenants upon the valid transfer of the duty to perform cosmetic repairs.
Whether § 18 of the lease agreement remains valid is irrelevant.
With the handover protocol, the landlord acknowledged the apartment as contractually compliant.
The handover protocol contained no specific reservation that the apartment had not been returned in a proper condition, i.e., after the completion of due cosmetic repairs. The only handwritten note in the handover protocol stated that some walls were not properly painted.
In fact, as the court found after questioning the involved parties during the main hearing, the walls were not painted at all. In this respect, the handwritten note in the handover protocol does not change the consequences of the negative acknowledgment of debt, meaning the landlord is barred from demanding settlement payments in place of this. This applies equally to other compensation claims.
Source: District Court of Leonberg
Important Note: The content of this article has been prepared to the best of our knowledge and belief. However, due to the complexity and constant evolution of the subject matter, we must exclude liability and warranty. Important Notice: The content of this article has been created to the best of our knowledge and understanding. However, due to the complexity and constant changes in the subject matter, we must exclude any liability and warranty.
If you need legal advice, feel free to call us at 0221 – 80187670 or email us at info@mth-partner.de.
Lawyers in Cologne provide advice and representation in tenancy law.