New verdict: Bearders do not consume property value – Property – Private



[ad_1]

Thus, home buyers are denied hundreds of thousands in compensation for alleged home impairment.

The court ruling in the Agder Court of Appeals is in stark contrast to the Nedre Telemark District Court judgment, where home buyers have been upheld in their claim to value reduction in the home.

The central issue in the case, both in the district court and in the Court of Appeal, was whether, because of a proven beard, a reduction in the value of housing may be required.

"Spoiled and Excluded"

In the new judgment of the Court of Appeal, real estate buyers are convinced that there is a basis for price reductions, but not part of the requirement for value reduction.

In fact, a majority in the Court of Appeal considers that the discovery of beards is not sufficiently likely to cause a reduction in the value of housing – which may form the basis for price reductions.

Judges write that the beard may be perceived as "unpleasant and indiscriminate," but the judgment emphasizes that the beard crest at home, through pest control, has been reduced to "a minimum and acceptable level."

The price reduction results, therefore, from the repair costs necessary for all deficiencies in the property – which, according to real estate buyers, are not just about beards.

The price reduction, which the insurance of the Protector and the owners are required to pay, is NOK 113,215, according to the opinion of the Court of Appeal.

Not addressed to feature

– This case has a special fact, and it is not automatic in that it will set guidelines for other beard issues, says lawyer and communications director Dag Are Børresen in assisting insurance for E24.

& quot; % 2Cy% 3D0 & t% 5B% 5D = maxSize% 3Awidth% 3D270 & publicKey = drpublish & accessToken = af5c0ccb5bf6da97f40b6726460918f3974ff8daf21f75c2f379af364e098799 "alt =

Lawyer and communications director Dag Are Børresen in insurance.

"style =" width: 100%; "aria-describedby =" figcaption # 24605161 "/>

Lawyer and communications director Dag Are Børresen in insurance.

The Help, which represents the buyers, has not yet made a final decision on the appeal.

The insurance company will do this in consultation with real estate buyers, says Børresen.

"I do not think it's fair to comment on the matter before the trial is enforceable," he says.

Lawyer and Claims Settlement Director Cathrine Wessel Poulsen, of the Insurance Protector – where the owners have their insurance – tells E24 that the Protector is very pleased with the judgment.

"The judgment is good and complete, and of course there is no verdiminus. He says that the Protector said all the way, that the beards should be treated the same way as the other insects, with remediation. The costs of decontamination are low and are declining, and few treatments are needed, says Poulsen.

The exchange in Aid adds that he hopes that soon it will be an effective and lasting cleaning of the beards, so that the real estate park releases the problems that the shivers bring with them.

Found both silver and beard

The house that the Court of Appeal case handles was taken over by the new owners in November 2014. Home buyers claimed that shortly thereafter, small animals were discovered in various places around the house. A few months later, it was proven that both the silver and the beard (see the box actually) in the house.

In the district court, buyers were satisfied with the claim that beardedness led to a reduction in housing value of approx. 15 percent

The insurance protection and owners were required to pay NOK 693,000 in price reductions in addition to legal costs.

Protectors and landlords resorted to the sentence for the Agder Court of Appeal in September last year. They believe it was insufficiently proven that the house was actually bearded at the time of acquisition.

The issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the proven beards at home, which were "reduced to a very modest and exhausted stock", led to a decrease in the value of housing.

"Buyers have the burden of proving it," he says at the trial.

The Court of Appeal finds it doubtful that there was a viable population of beards in the residence at the time of acquisition and that sellers are also likely to have to some extent made observations of small animals "which clearly indicate closer investigations and monitoring of conditions" .

However, judges believe that "it is not plausible enough that the sellers knew or knew that it was silver / beard in the house by the purchaser's purchase of the house."

Therefore, any reduction in value on the property that may provide a basis for price discounts is not sufficiently demonstrated.

[ad_2]

Source link