District Court of Breisbach, 21.10.2022, Case No.: 1 C 7/22
Insults and defamation directed at the landlord by the tenant can only serve as grounds for termination if they reach a certain level of severity, and an assessment of the overall circumstances concludes that continuing the rental relationship is unreasonable for the landlord. But what happens when the tenant refers to the landlord as a „notorious liar“? This was the issue the District Court of Breisbach had to decide.
Facts of the Case:
The plaintiffs were the landlords of an apartment and sued the tenants for eviction and return of the premises. The apartment was rented by Defendant 1, and Defendant 2 had access to the apartment and stored clothes there.
Rental relationship was strained from the beginning
The rental relationship between the parties had been strained from the outset. Early on, Defendant 1 (the tenant) complained about defects in the apartment and terminated the lease both immediately and with notice, effective December 31, 2021.
In November 2021, the parties met and agreed to continue the terminated lease. The landlords also agreed to address the defects in the apartment.
In a letter dated December 13, 2021, Defendant 1 responded to a registered letter from the plaintiffs dated December 7, 2021, in which several of the tenant’s behaviors were criticized, as follows:
Tenant responds with a sharp letter after accusations by the landlord
„„Point 3,… You should rather remove your abandoned personal belongings from the communal areas instead of harassing your law-abiding tenant with false accusations.
Point 4, where I park my vehicles in public spaces is none of your concern. Nor does it matter to you which vehicles I use and when. But once again, you have allowed your vivid imagination to run wild. I do not own five cars, and you know this well. Why do you write such untruths?
I feel that there is something wrong with your perception of the truth.
Landlord referred to as a notorious liar
Lying seems to be part of your daily routine.
Regarding your PS, I spoke with the municipality of Ihringen, and they assured me that it is not customary for the municipality of Ihringen to comment on or inquire about the size, use, or number of people in private living spaces. Another product of your deceitful imagination?
You have not yet complied with my demand to hand over the withheld keys and gate openers (as of 12/13/2021). You have not addressed or responded to the significant defects in the apartment, or you have fobbed me off with lies. This has gone too far.“„.
As a result of this letter, the plaintiffs, through their attorney, terminated the lease without notice, alternatively with notice effective March 31, 2022. The immediate termination was based on the claim that the plaintiffs had been severely insulted and accused of being notorious liars by the tenant.
After the tenants failed to vacate the apartment, the plaintiffs filed an eviction lawsuit with the District Court of Breisbach.
Decision of the District Court of Breisbach
The District Court of Breisbach ruled that the plaintiffs had no claim for eviction and return of the disputed apartment under §§ 546, 985 BGB. The rental relationship between the plaintiffs and Defendant 1 was not terminated either by the tenant’s or the landlord’s termination notice.
Court deemed the tenant’s remarks to be of low severity
The tenant’s termination had not ended the rental relationship because the parties had mutually agreed to continue the tenancy. The plaintiffs also had no claim for eviction based on the landlord’s termination notice of December 21, 2021.
The court found no valid grounds for immediate termination in the tenant’s letter of December 13, 2021. Under § 543 (1) Sentence 2 BGB, a valid reason for immediate termination exists if, considering all the circumstances of the individual case, particularly any fault by the parties and weighing their interests, the continuation of the tenancy is unreasonable for the terminating party until the expiration of the notice period or the otherwise scheduled end of the tenancy.
While insults can generally justify immediate termination, they require careful consideration of the circumstances under Sentence 2 and must exceed a threshold of unacceptability based on the judge’s assessment (BeckOK MietR/K. Schach, 29th Ed., 1.11.2021, BGB § 543, Rn. 11). Defendant 1 had indeed accused the plaintiffs of being „notorious liars“ by stating, „Lying seems to be part of your daily routine.“die Lüge gehört augenscheinlich zu Ihrem täglichen Brot“ der notorischen Lüge bezichtigt.
Insult did not constitute a significant breach of duty
Although calling someone a notorious liar is indeed offensive, the court did not consider it a significant breach of duty by the tenant. This was the first time Defendant 1 had questioned the plaintiffs’ moral integrity, and no similar statements had been made afterward. Therefore, it was deemed a one-time occurrence. When determining whether a single breach of duty is significant enough to justify immediate termination, the context of the situation that led to the statement must also be considered. The letter from Defendant 1 appeared to be a reaction to a letter from the plaintiffs, which had been unavailable to the court, but it seemed to contain warnings or accusations of breaches of the rental contract.
Defendant 1 evidently denied the allegations and disputed some of the factual claims made by the plaintiffs. In this context, the tenant raised the accusation of lying. Although accusing someone of lying implies they are knowingly making false claims, the court concluded that this accusation, made for the first time in the context of a written dispute with the landlord’s accusations, did not amount to a significant breach of duty that justified terminating the contract.
Consequently, the plaintiffs had no grounds for immediate termination of the tenancy under § 543 (1) BGB.
The precautionary ordinary termination was also deemed unjustified. Under § 573 (1) Sentence 1 BGB, a landlord may only terminate a lease if they have a legitimate interest in ending the tenancy. Such an interest exists if the tenant has culpably breached their contractual obligations to a significant degree (§ 573 (2) No. 1 BGB). As outlined above, this was not the case.
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, please 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.