Table of contents:

Cut the neighbor's tree? Better be careful
Cut the neighbor's tree? Better be careful

Video: Cut the neighbor's tree? Better be careful

Отличия серверных жестких дисков от десктопных
Video: Hello Neighbor Don't Bite Snow White Achievement Walkthrough! (New) Read description* 2023, January
Anonim

In theory, you can cut the neighbor's tree if it unreasonably protrudes into your own property. But beware! If you are too good with the socks, you can get into trouble. The LBS presents this and three other current court rulings.

Defendant had 100-year-old linden trees cut back from the neighbor

If overgrown green plants on the border of one property are a significant nuisance to the neighboring property, then the owner must remedy the situation. If he does not do this sustainably, even the neighbor can initiate circumcision. According to information provided by the Law and Tax Information Service of the LBS, he should always be particularly cautious when dealing with extremely old trees. (Brandenburg Higher Regional Court, file number 5 U 109/16)

The verdict in detail

The case: seven linden trees around the age of 100 stood on the border of two properties. They sometimes protruded several meters from the neighbor, dropped leaves and also caused bird droppings to accumulate on the neighbor's terrace. Despite several requests for pruning, the owner of the trees failed to do so, so the neighbor himself took the initiative and asked a company to do it. But then there was trouble in court. Because the linden trees were badly damaged, the owner claimed damages.

The verdict: The judiciary aimed primarily at the age of the trees. It was not decisive here whether the neighbor had the right to intervene himself. As the expert stated in the process, "strong crown cuts should generally be avoided in older trees", such interventions are justifiable at most "moderately" and "at shorter intervals". The court accused the neighbor of negligent behavior. In view of the “reduction of a recognizable old tree population that has grown over several decades”, he should have asked better about the risks. The damage that an expert had determined was just under 7, 000 euros.

Alone in the bathroom: parents do not have to constantly monitor their toddler

If a child is already three and a half years old = ", then when he wakes up at night he can go to the toilet on his own and does not have to be constantly monitored by the parents. This also applies if the family is visiting elsewhere. So the judiciary decided in a larger compensation process after informing the law and tax information service of the LBS. (Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court, file number 4 U 15/18)

The verdict in detail

The case: A child who visited friends with his parents actually managed to visit the toilet independently. However, the use of too much toilet paper clogged the drain and, at the same time, caught the flush button, led to constant water leakage. The damage was enormous - especially for the apartment below. The residential building insurance demanded 15, 000 euros from the child's mother or her liability insurance. The reason: There is a violation of the parental supervision duty.

The verdict: The judges could not recognize such a breach of duty. A three-year-old did not have to be under constant surveillance in a closed apartment, they found. It is sufficient if a supervisor is within earshot. An independent toilet visit is not unusual at this age, after all, it is also about promoting a reasonable development of the child to independence.

(Too much) on the go: Treasury had problems with numerous trips by a landlord to his property

In principle, a landlord can claim the travel costs to his property with a flat rate of 0.30 euros per kilometer traveled as advertising costs. But there are certain limits. According to information provided by the Law and Tax Information Service of the LBS, a point may be exceeded from which this type of tax deductibility is no longer possible. (Federal Fiscal Court, file number IX R 18/15)

The verdict in detail

The case: A taxpayer renovated several apartments and an apartment building in a place other than where he lives. He visited the construction sites in 165 and 215 individual trips a year. Due to this accumulation, the responsible tax office came to the conclusion that the person concerned had a permanent place of work at the location of the rental property. Accordingly, he could only claim the less favorable distance flat rate of EUR 0.30 per kilometer (and not per kilometer driven).

The verdict: The Federal Fiscal Court supported the legal view that the tax authorities had represented. If a rental property is visited not only occasionally, but with a certain sustainability continuously and again and again, then one can assume a regular place of work. The person concerned was on site practically every working day. As a rule, the assertion of advertising costs is not a problem for landlords, because they only visit their property occasionally - for example, when there is a change of tenant, for checks or to read meter readings.

Storage, not living: tenant must adhere to contractual provisions

The provisions in the lease were clear. "The apartment is only left for storage and storage purposes (…), " it said. These were rooms in need of renovation, for which the tenant only had to pay a basic rent of EUR 85 per month. He was still allowed to wash there and stay the night in winter. However, permanent living in the property developed from what the owner complained about, warned about and later cited as the reason for termination without notice. After informing the law and tax information service of the LBS, the landlord was finally successful with his eviction suit in court. At no time was it intended to live in the rooms at all times, it was a clear breach of contract. (Bielefeld District Court, file number 407 C 111/16)

Popular by topic