Settled settlement does not constitute inadmissibility in disputes concerning the meaning of the settlement
Settled settlement does not constitute inadmissibility in disputes concerning the meaning of the settlement
Tenant-owned association board member
A condominium association filed a lawsuit against T.A. in two cases in 2015.
One of the cases was brought in Stockholm District Court (TR) and concerned measures taken by T.A. and failed to take during his time as a board member of the association.
The second case was brought at Attunda TR and concerned the forfeiture of T.A.’s condominium due to late monthly fees.
Both cases were settled by conciliation.
Stockholm TR confirmed the settlement in judgment (Chapter 17, Section 6 of the Code of Procedure).
By confirming the judgment, it gained legal force and the same question could therefore not be re-examined.
The settlement agreement included that T.A. would pay a certain amount to the association that would use the money for maintenance work on the property.
At Attunda TR, the case was dismissed after the association withdrew its action.
In the latter settlement, the parties agreed, among other things, that T.A. would sell his condominium within six months and that he could rent it out until it was sold.
Statutory payment obligation
According to T.A., it was understood between the parties that the maintenance work would be completed no later than six months after the settlement, even though it was not apparent from the agreement.
Since the work was not completed after six months, he considered that the association was guilty of breach of contract and would pay the money back.
The association, for its part, was of the opinion that they had not agreed on exactly when the maintenance work would be completed.
Furthermore, it was considered that the payment could not be returned because the judgment on which the payment obligation was based was confirmed and had become final.
Furthermore, T.A. leased the condominium to his son without the association’s consent for more than six months after the settlement agreement was reached.
He also continued with the rental after being asked for rectification by the association.
The association therefore considered that his condominium was forfeited.
T.A. argued that the reason he was unable to sell the apartment on time was because work on the property was delayed and that he therefore had the right to rent it out until it was completed.
Inadmissibility – independent legal order
TR will initially examine whether there is a procedural impediment to considering whether the association should repay the money at all because the judgment was upheld.
In order to answer that question, the Court must first determine whether the question to be examined is the same question that has already been decided.
According to the Court, it is decisive for that assessment whether the new action concerns another independent legal order, or whether the inaddress is an alternative to what was sought in the original case.
If this is an alternative consequence, the previous judgment is inadmissibility.
Since T.A.’s payment obligation is the result agreed by the parties in the confirmed settlement agreement, payment cannot be resumed because of the legal force of the original judgment.
The claim for repayment is therefore rejected by TR.
Oral agreement – forfeited condominium
The next question being examined by the court is whether T.A. has the right, in accordance with its statement, to sublet the condominium until the work on the property is completed.
It’s up to T.A. to prove that’s the case.
There are testimonies that speak for the position of both T.A. and the association.
However, no witness, other than T.A., actually attended the conclusion of the agreement and corroborates his statement.
Therefore, the Court does not consider that T.A. has succeeded in proving that the oral agreement deviates from the written agreement.
He has thus not been entitled to rent out the apartment more than six months after the settlement.
TR goes on to test whether the condominium is forfeited.
Since he sublet the apartment without the association’s consent and has not completed the rental at the request, the condominium is forfeited and T.A. is moving out.
Confirmed settlement agreement – review
The first question the Court of Appeal (HovR) examines is whether there is an impediment to considering whether the payment to the association as a result of the confirmed settlement should be returned.
The Court of Justice states that a party may bring an action for invalidity against a statutory settlement agreement, which is a difference from ordinary judgments which have gained legal force.
Furthermore, if the parties have agreed on something other than that resulting from the settlement, a statutory judgment is not an obstacle to the party being able to bring an action in order to exercise its agreed right.
The court’s interpretation of T.A.’s action in the main proceedings is that it concerns the correct meaning of the settlement agreement rather than a review of the statutory agreement.
HovR therefore does not consider that there is a procedural impediment and returns that part of the case to TR.
It is further stated that more of the judgment should not be referred back than necessary.
Since TR’s trials of the various parts of the case are deemed to have been carried out sufficiently separately, HovR merely rejects the question of T.A.’s possible right to reimbursement.
Forfeited right of use
Regarding the question of whether T.A. has the right to sublet the apartment until the maintenance work is completed, HovR considers TR’s judgment to be well justified and it must therefore stand firm.
HovR also agrees with TR on the assessment of T.A.’s right of use.
The right of use is forfeited and T.A. is moving out of the apartment.