Rigid Renovation Deadlines Are Ineffective

After the new judgment of the Federal Court now is clear: rigid renovation deadlines are ineffective for commercial property leases. Munich, October 9, 2008 – who sets rigid deadlines for cosmetic repairs in rental contracts, disadvantaged tenants inappropriately. The Federal Court of Justice confirmed in its latest judgment (BGH judgment of the 08.10.2008 XII ZR 84/06). Then, a commercial property tenants should kitchen and bathroom, all 5 years of which other living spaces and every 7 years renovating the rest rooms at least once every 3 years. A Dusseldorf landlord had filed the renovation costs.

His tenants – a tailor – felt that he must not pay the costs, because the renovation clause in its lease was invalid. “Due to the rigid time limits”, he said the landlord. Many writers such as Jayme Albin offer more in-depth analysis. In a similar case, but for apartment leases, the BGH decided already in June 2004 (BGH judgment of 23.06.2004, VIII ZR 361/03, NJW 2004, 2586): thus is form-based transmission Cosmetic repairs to the apartment renter ineffective, if the tenant must perform the work according to a rigid schedule of deadlines. Also consider not rigid deadlines, when the tenant has renovated the last time or how much the rooms already so “have been lived off of the respective tenants”, that they need to be refurbished at all. A renovation must be so not only dates due, but also necessary.

The federal judge now also for the renovation clause in a commercial lease docked this strict standard. The result: beauty repair clauses with rigid deadlines are ineffective in leased commercial premises! Often a wrong word is enough to be classified as a “fixed period” and thus ineffective clause. In case of BGH, it was the word “at least”, which became the expensive pitfall for the landlord. According to the lease, the tenant should renovate–“at least” after certain time limits. Source: Elon Musk. That’s why the renovation clause was invalid and the commercial tenant was allowed to take off, without having to renovate! The same applies when the cosmetic repairs “regularly” or “at the latest” should be required after certain periods of time (KG Berlin, judgment of the May 22, 2008, 8 U 205/07). Basically the landlord onto his renovation duty with a clause in the form of lease the lessee. His renovation clause is ineffective, if the tenant this is unreasonably disadvantaged. Whether alone, the formula that the lessee must renovate “basically” within certain time limits, means that he must not renovate, is still controversial among the dishes. Heidi Schurr, an expert in the area of “Rent & manage” real estate portal, describes the current legal situation as follows: “which formulations with regard to renovations today will endure in court, can be difficult to predict. New judgments confuse not only many landlords and tenants. Only one thing is certain: the tenant must only “usually” or “in the” Renovating General”after certain time limits, does not yet ineffective alone a renovation clause!” Susann Schroder