May I attach a catnet? We have all the major animal husbandry judgments in the condo and cat advert: Make your cat happy.
Owners of a housing community can not consistently decide that keeping pets is generally prohibited. An owner must not be worse off than a tenant. Thus, the keeping of non-dangerous small animals is not prohibitive.
It is not allowed to prohibit the keeping of dogs and cats in a condominium in general. The state court Berlin (Az .: 24 W 267/91) sees therein an impermissible restriction of the personality rights. Quite the cat can not be prohibited. Even then, not when this decision, once like, confronts subsequent owners of cats. These can challenge the paragraph.
Other residential parties can defend themselves by harassing the neighborly cats. Exposure of cats to foreign flats or land must exceed normal levels. “The only isolated intrusion of foreign cats in neighboring houses can not be considered in principle as a property or property disturbance,” says the Higher Regional Court in Koblenz. Az .: 3U 834/88
Anyone who buys an apartment, thus also accepted the local house rules. If this order contains a free-wheeling ban or a two-cat regulation, you have to accept them. The house rules were not subsequently “presented” to the buyer, but already existed when the purchase contract was signed.
It should not be forgotten that living together in a condominium community requires the law of mutual consideration (good conduct clause § 14 No. 1 of the Home Ownership Act).
Excessive pet ownership
Excessive pet ownership in a condominium (here: keeping more than 100 small animals in a two-room apartment) can then constitute an unacceptable and thus unreasonable annoyance to the owner community if no specific odor nuisance or spread of vermin outside the home can be detected. When an excessive number of animals are kept in an apartment must be determined on a case-by-case basis using the general approach. (OLG Cologne, 26.9.95)
Purchase of pets
By a majority of votes, the Homeowners’ Assembly may decide that the future purchase of pets will depend on the prior approval of the Administrator and Advisory Board. Such a rule applies not only to dogs or cats, but also to rabbits. Such a decision does not violate the sense of decency. He also does not intervene in the urgent core area of the residential property, since the essential content of the use of residential property does not include the possibility of animal husbandry. OG Saarbrücken, Az .: 5 W 365/98 – 105
Numerous unlimited animal husbandry
It is unreasonable for the administrator jointly responsible for ensuring an orderly coexistence of the homeowners to ensure that latent sources of harassment – and this includes the unlimited number of livestock in an apartment – are not substantiated. If he restricts the permissible number of cats that can still be worn in a flat of about 60 square meters to two animals, then he does not make any illicit use of his right to choose the appropriate means if each owner of the flat knew from the beginning that Animal husbandry is subject to certain restrictions.
The end for dog and cat
The majority decision of a condominium assembly, which gives a homeowner with regard to previous inconveniences (here: keeping each of four dogs and four cats) to stop the husbandry and residence of cats and dogs in his condominium and in the future no longer cats and dogs keep, take up or look after, does not restrict the special property, but is directed towards the proper use of the same. If such a decision is not challenged in due time by the apartment owner concerned before the district court, then this decision is in principle effective. The apartment owner is then obliged to completely stop the dog and cat husbandry. Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, Az .: 3 Wx 173/02
Cat Net: Only the optics decide
If the façade of a condominium is defaced by a homeowner installing a cat net on his balcony, then this must be removed if the condominium community so decides. It does not matter whether or not this cat net was fastened by engaging in the masonry. Decisive is the visual impression alone. Bavarian Supreme Court, Az .: 2Z BR 38/03
No cat freewheel
If the owner community of a housing estate wants to prohibit the keeping of dogs and cats, this decision must, in principle, be taken unanimously. In contrast, the type of animal husbandry can also be regulated by majority vote in the house rules. Therefore, the decision is valid: “Dogs and cats are not allowed to walk freely around the facility.” Such a decision is consistent with proper administration to prevent unreasonable harassment of other homeowners. The ban on letting cats roam free is not a prohibition on keeping cats but only an acceptable restriction. Regional Court Munich I, Az .: 1 T 1633/04
Trap hunting is hunting practice
The setting up of traps, trolls and goosenecks is a form of hunting practice. For this, the landowner or applicant requires a hunting permit. This permission under hunting law is indispensable and necessary even if the trap erector mainly depends on keeping “strangers” (ie persons) away from his property. Administrative Court Magdeburg, Az .: 1 A 697/03 MD (n.rk.)
Livestock ban in the condominium
A provision contained in the declaration of divorce of a condominium community stating that private property is to be exercised in the interests of the peaceful coexistence of the household so that neither a co-owner nor a resident of the house will be disadvantaged by the unavoidable degree of social coexistence and, in particular for livestock farming and the practice of music, the homeowner does not prevent the decision by majority vote in the context of proper use of a restriction or prohibition of animal husbandry. Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court, Ref .: I-3 Wx 311/04
Even in the condominium, a cat owner is not immune to forcibly transforming his free-wheeling cat to a tiger-tiger. Anyway, the district court Munich on 29.3. In 2004, the lawsuit filed by a cat owner, who did not want to oppose the decision of the owners’ meeting, cats and dogs are not allowed to run around freely in the condominium. The court found that a cat’s ad: Make her cat a pleasure to be kept in an apartment and that was “appropriate to the species”. The interest of the owners in the protection of communal areas from pollution has priority. However, cat ownership can not ban the owners’ meeting.
Neighbors with cat allergy
According to a judgment of the district court confirmed by the District Court of Munich, a cat must disappear from a housing estate if an allergic-reactive person lives in the immediate vicinity of “her” apartment. The avoidance of an asthma attack of the allergy weight, so the judges, heavier than the psychological effect of the cat on the neighbors, especially their behavioral disordered child. Of course, the plaintiff would come across cats in his everyday life, but he could avoid them, but not the allergens of the cat in his living area. In plain language this means: Always have the permission to keep a cat confirmed in writing. And: Inform your neighbors in time, for the sake of the future roommate!