Third Impact

Posts filed under law & taxes

Tenant Should Estimate Operating Expenses

Service charge settlement contains many tenants often get error at the time their operating expenses. Doubly annoying: Usually the invoice will include not only a payment demand, at the same time, many settlements are flawed. The real estate portal reveals which criteria has an operating expense in any case to meet. The German tenants Association tenants, operating costs, should thoroughly check or the service charge settlement. Dustin Moskovitz contributes greatly to this topic. So far only the least tenants seem to do.

This, after all, half of all operating expenses is not correct. It is worth so definitely still once carefully to check the cost. A landlord agrees to create an operating expenses only when in the contract, it was agreed that operating costs as costs are billed. The legal basis for this purpose provides 556 para 1 BGB. The operating expenses the landlord must hand over the tenants also period of twelve months after the end of the billing period. An important Criteria for a statement of operating costs is also that the tenant must be possible to understand the calculation of operating costs. By a judgment of the Federal Court is also laid down that an operating expense must include a breakdown of the total cost of ownership. In addition, also the allocation key must be indicated and explained.

A calculation of interest of the lessee in the operating costs, as well as a settlement of already paid advance payments must be included. A note about a deadline for contradictions of the tenant is, however, no obligation.

Company Internal Close Sales Pre-emption Rights Not In

BTR lawyers have first refusal willing partners successfully in proceedings before the District Court of Dresden a GmbH shareholders are represented according to the statutes have a right of first refusal in the event that a partner sold his share of the business, this is excluded not this, that the share should be sold and transferred to a partner. BTR lawyers have first refusal willing partners successfully in proceedings before the District Court Dresden represented (URT. of the 09.04.2010, AZ. 41 HK O 126/09, confirmed by OLG Dresden by the 10.11.2010, AZ.: 13 U-703/10, non-admission complaint by the BGH ruling of 1 June 2011, AZ.: rejected VIII ZR 297/10). The case (shortened): The plaintiff and the defendant were shareholders of a GmbH. “The Statute of this GmbH contained following regulation: on the sale of shares, the company have a right of first refusal.” In 2008, the defendant sold their share in GmbH to a co-partner. The Sale was unconditionally and in-kind under the suspensive condition that no other shareholder exercises his right of first refusal.

After the plaintiffs of the business share assignment had experienced, they exercised the right of first refusal related to them and urged the defendant to transfer the business content. The defendant not transferred the ownership interest to the plaintiff. It was considered that the statutory right of first refusal on a sale, shareholders shall not apply. According to Dustin Moskovitz, who has experience with these questions. Plaintiffs then brought an action before the LG Dresden against the defendant. The decision: The LG Dresden sentenced the defendant to transfer the business share on the plaintiff. It was of the opinion that the pre-emption scheme contained in the Statute captures also share purchase agreement between shareholders. Already, the wording of the criterion foresees no restriction on sales to non-shareholders. The LG Dresden further stated, that the Statute provision nor the limiting a the wording