Paderborn Local Court, judgement of 17.10.2020, ref.: 51a C 165/20
Facts
Repayment of the rental deposit for a rental property that has already been demolished
The plaintiff was the tenant of the defendant's flat. The defendant planned to demolish the house in which the tenant lived and to erect a new building on the property. The plaintiff sued the defendant for payment of the rental deposit she had paid. At that time, the defendant offered the plaintiff a cancellation agreement regarding the tenancy. This cancellation agreement contained a clause that provided for a settlement of the deposit within two months at the latest, as well as a payment of 5,000 euros if the plaintiff vacated the premises she occupied. As a result, the defendant moved out and received the payment of 5,000 euros, but never the repayment of her deposit.
Catastrophic condition of the flat
The defendant found the rental property in a run-down condition and with some not inconsiderable damage and therefore declared a set-off against the plaintiff in 2016. Due to the condition of the rental property, the deposit paid remained with the defendant to fully cover the damage. One year later, the plaintiff's then authorised representative sent the defendant a reminder for payment. The defendant referred to the declaration of set-off. In addition, the defendant denied that a valid contract had ever been concluded between the two parties and therefore claimed that the payment of EUR 5,000 had been made without justification.
Judgement of the Paderborn Local Court
Effectiveness of the cancellation agreement through implied action
In this case, the Paderborn Local Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff. The cancellation agreement between the two parties had become effective through the implied behaviour of the plaintiff, i.e. by moving out of the premises she occupied. Therefore, the payment of 5,000 euros was not made without justification and the claim for repayment of the rental deposit still existed. The damage to the rented property mentioned had not been proven by the defendant. However, the three-year limitation period for the claim to repayment of the deposit may have expired. However, this limitation period had been suspended by a reminder notice issued by the plaintiff. The action had been filed within this period.
The plaintiff therefore had a claim against the defendant for payment of the rental deposit, as had been agreed in the cancellation agreement.
Source: District Court Paderborn
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 changes in the subject matter, liability and guarantees are excluded.Important Note: The content of this article has been prepared to the best of our knowledge. However, due to the complexity and constant changes in the legal field, we exclude liability and warranties.
If you need legal advice, feel free to contact us at 0221-80187670 or via email at If you require legal advice, feel free to call us at 0221 – 80187670 or send us an email at If you need employment law advice, feel free to call us at 0221 – 80187670 or send an email to info@mth-partner.de...