Disputes over the costs of repairing common areas in apartment buildings often go beyond the mere issue of debt. Arguments frequently raised in court concern procurement procedures, the organization of tenders, the contractors selected by the homeowners’ association or the building manager, the reasonableness of work prices, or even payments to the companies that performed the work. However, a recent ruling by the Vilnius Regional Court shows that in such cases, it is important not to lose sight of the fundamental question: whether the work was actually performed and whether the unit owners who benefited from it can refuse to pay for it.
Karolina Laura Briliūtė, a senior attorney at the AVOCAD law firm, notes that in practice, debtors’ arguments often stray from the substance of the dispute itself. “In cases involving debts for repairs to common-use areas, we often see arguments that no competitive bidding process was organized, that procurement rules may have been violated, that there is insufficient data on the association’s or administrator’s payments to the contractor, or that payment documents have not been provided. Sometimes it is precisely these circumstances that form the basis for dismissing claims, even though they are not directly related to the main issue of the case—whether the work was performed and whether the owners are obligated to contribute to its financing,” says K. L. Briliūtė.
In the case at hand, the court of first instance had dismissed the claims, emphasizing, among other things, circumstances related to the procedures for organizing the work, the justification of the cost of the work, and payments to the contractor. However, the appellate court reached a different conclusion. The court noted that the evidence in the case suggests that the repair work was in fact performed and that the condition of the common-use facilities was improved. In the court’s view, a situation in which the direct beneficiaries of the work performed fail to pay for the work at all is inconsistent with the principles of justice, reasonableness, and good faith.
According to K. L. Briliūtė, it is precisely this point emphasized by the court that is particularly significant. “The court stated very clearly that one cannot ignore the fact that the work was performed and that all co-owners benefit from the results. If a common-use property has been repaired, procedural issues alone do not mean that the owners can be completely exempted from the obligation to cover their share of the costs,” the lawyer notes.
More importantly, the appellate court directly addressed the arguments that are raised particularly frequently in cases of this nature. The ruling states that the circumstances regarding compliance or non-compliance with procurement rules, as well as questions regarding the extent to which the homeowners’ association or the administrator has settled accounts with the selected contractor, are not of material significance in this case when determining the owners’ debt. In the court’s view, the case did not concern the issue of mutual settlements between the homeowners’ association or the administrator and the contractor, but rather whether the owners are obligated to pay for the repair work actually performed and to what extent these expenses are justified.
This position may be significant for many homeowners’ associations and property managers who face situations where some owners refuse to pay their share of repair costs, citing circumstances unrelated to the performance of the work itself. “It is important to understand that the maintenance and repair of common areas are the responsibility of all co-owners. Therefore, when evaluating such disputes, the focus should be on whether the work was necessary, whether it was actually performed, and whether the expenses are reasonable. Otherwise, a paradoxical situation arises in which common-use areas are repaired, all owners benefit from them, yet some of them refuse to contribute to covering the costs,” says K. L. Briliūtė.
The court also took into account the broader context of such disputes. The ruling emphasized that the opposite situation would negate the obligation of the owners of the premises themselves to maintain the common areas and would not ensure a final resolution of the dispute. In other words, the legal system cannot encourage a model in which co-owners benefit from the results of repairs but avoid covering their costs.
According to a senior attorney at AVOCAD, this ruling contributes to the development of a more consistent body of case law and may serve as an important guide in future cases. “The appellate court reiterated a fundamental rule: when evaluating such disputes, the most important thing is to determine whether repair work on common-use areas was actually performed and whether the co-owners benefited from it. It is precisely these circumstances that must be at the center of the dispute, rather than secondary issues that do not necessarily determine the existence of the obligation to pay itself,” summarizes K. L. Briliūtė. The ruling of the Vilnius Regional Court once again confirms that in cases initiated by homeowners’ associations and property managers regarding the recovery of repair costs, the most important factors remain the actual performance of the work, its results, and the co-owners’ obligation to contribute to the maintenance and upkeep of the common property.