→ You can read a summarized version of this story here ←
My name is Christer Johansen and I own a residential section (apartment) in the condominium referred to in the text below through my wholly owned company Norsin Invest AS.
My good neighbor, who is also part of this story, also owns a residential section (apartment) in the condominium that is mentioned.
The third main character in this story is Hanne Sine Andresen and she owns the commercial section in the condominium mentioned through her company HS Eie AS.
Other persons who are part of the story, such as the names of lawyers and persons who have made statements in the case referred to, have been attempted to be obscured in both the text and documents that are part of this story. This has been done primarily because they are not parties to the case in question, and to protect them from all forms of attention and any inquiries that such publication may entail. Those who may wish to see the parts of the documents that have been obscured probably also know where to go to see the documents in their entirety. After all, they are basically public documents that are available to everyone.
When I use the word "business section" in the text, it is in practice Hanne Sine Andresen who is being referred to. And when I refer to "the café", it is also Hanne Sine Andresen I actually mean, even though she did not run the café herself, it is she who owns the premises that were rented out for the café operation and it was also she who set the premises for how the operation of the café should take place. And when I use the word "opposing party" in the text below, I am also referring to Hanne Sine Andresen.
And likewise when I refer to the "residential sections" or "apartments", it is in practice my good neighbor and myself who are referred to.
When I use the words "we" or "us", it is my good neighbor and myself jointly that I mean.
No one should be allowed to hide behind words like "the condominium" or "the board" or a company name, such institutions do not perform actions, it's the people behind them that do!
There is also no such thing as "in the best interests of the condominium", it is either in the best interests of the people behind the condominium, or the opposite. And in a condominium there is usually more than one person, otherwise it wouldn't be a condominium.
Since I don't have a legal background, I may have a slightly imprecise approach to the law in what I write, and I may use some slightly imprecise formulations. But so be it, more precise and legally correct formulations can be found in the material I refer to and attach.
I feel a bit like Øyvind Blunck imitating a storyteller when I have now decided to write this down, because it should be a tall tale, but it isn't! Unlike Øyvind Blunck's story, this story is not the least bit funny, except perhaps for the ending, depending on which side of the table you're sitting on. But like many good stories, this story ends well in the end too.
Those who know me know that I moved to Singapore several years ago and that I'm established with my family there, but I still have family and ties to Norway and especially Hamar, and I have always loved lake Mjøsa. So when the opportunity arose and two apartments were put up for sale in a beautiful property right next to Mjøsa, I just had to buy one of them. That was in the spring of 2011, almost 13 years ago at the time of writing. I pretty soon discovered that I had a nice neighbor that had bought the apartment directly above my own. Although the seller at the time was a company, the real seller (owner of the company) was a nice older gentleman. In the short time I knew him, I got to know him as a man of honor, who was active even though he was well into his 80s and probably really retired. He had a law degree and was a Supreme Court lawyer, and my mother has since told me that for a time she had him as a law teacher at "Katta" (Hamar Katedralskole - then called Hamar Handelsgymnasium) when he was a young man and a relatively newly qualified lawyer. She remembered him well and had only positive things to say about him. But enough about that. He rented out the rest of the building, and "everyone" with a connection to Hamar that goes back further than about 2013 probably knows this place as "Torp Legesenter".
For me, this is a vacation spot, a "cabin by Lake Mjøsa", which I use for a few weeks a year, preferably during the hottest summer months. But when I'm there, it's "home", and to my good neighbor on the floor above it is home. Since I have walked my childhood shoes in the same area, I was of course before I chose to buy fully aware that just a few meters further down is the popular "Torpstranda", with all that entails, especially on hot summer days. If I had been shy of people, I obviously wouldn't have bought an apartment there. But the property is fenced, and is private property even though it is organized as a condominium. Incidentally, it is a requirement from Hamar municipality that the property must have a fence against public areas, this is laid down in a special zoning plan for the property, which is done to prevent "privatization" of the public areas immediately adjacent to the property. But enough about the building and the property and the story behind it.
Life goes on, and unfortunately the elderly gentleman passed away just under two years after I bought the apartment. And there was an inheritance settlement, which is usually what happens when someone passes away.
In the spring of 2013, we met the heirs of the commercial section of the condominium for the first time, and an informal annual meeting was held in the condominium. Informal, because they did not yet have a full overview of the condominium's business management. We introduced ourselves and there was some talk about history, and it was clarified that they (the heirs) had not yet decided who would formally take over the commercial section, or whether it would be sold. It was a pleasant meeting with a normally good tone.
In January 2014, the medical center that was located in the commercial section of the building moved, leaving most of the building empty for a period of time.
During the spring of 2014, the two of us who own residential sections in the condominium were informed that it was the daughter of the previous owner, Hanne Sine Andresen, who had taken over or was to take over the commercial section in the condominium in connection with the inheritance settlement. She still owns it at the time of writing, through her company HS Eie AS.
In the summer of 2014, the condominium held its first ordinary annual meeting after the new owner took over the commercial section. The meeting, which was held on the terrace in my section of the condominium, was well attended. A new board was elected, consisting of the three of us who own sections in the condominium, as well as Hanne Sine Andresen's daughter. There were no special items on the agenda other than the items that one is obliged to address at such an annual meeting.
This continued for the next three years. There was a good tone in the condominium, and the annual meetings were conducted in peace and harmony. We made decisions together, and some major maintenance and new installations were carried out in the condominium. All this in peace and harmony. There were no changes in the composition of the board during these years, and Hanne Sine Andresen's daughter was more of a passive board member who did not attend the annual board meetings and annual meetings. During this period, the commercial section was rented out to a number of small businesses that had an office address and were located in the building. This was also completely unproblematic.
During the annual meeting of the condominium in May 2017, Hanne Sine Andresen informed us that she was planning to start up a "summer café" in the part of the building facing south, the two residential sections in the building are located at the north end of the building. The café operation was to start up in mid-June that year, and the two of us who have apartments in the building were encouraged to report any problems that might arise in connection with the café operation so that we could find the best possible solution for all parties in the building.
Most of the summer passed without any major challenges in connection with café operations. There was a lot more traffic in the common areas of the condominium than in previous years, with beachgoers and others visiting the café. What we had not been told was that the café guests would mainly stay in the common areas of the condominium and not in the business section's premises, although they mainly stayed at the end of the property where the café premises are located that summer. But I thought even then that it might be a bit odd to run the café mainly in the condominium's common areas, when the income from the operation goes to a section and thus does not benefit the condominium. Law is not my specialty, but I have at least read that common areas in a condominium belong jointly to the condominium and all the condominium's sections. So it also seems natural that any income from business operations in common areas should benefit the condominium in one form or another. However, no one made an issue of this and summer turned into fall and winter turned into spring.
In the spring of 2018, I noticed that there was a new operator of the café, who seemed more "professional" and with a wider range of services for the public. The café opened early that spring, and outdoor furniture was gradually installed in the condominium's common areas, which were then used exclusively by the café and its guests. The weather was very good that summer, with bustling life on "Torpstranda", and many visitors came for "outdoor dining" at the café. A lot of tables and chairs had been set out, as well as a large number of deckchairs/sun loungers. This was not cleared away after the café closed. This eventually became very annoying for those of us who have an apartment and private patio in the area. The public eventually used almost all parts of the common area in the condominium, including close to the private patios. I also experienced several times that summer that people wanted to use the toilet at my place. The area was also used extensively outside the café's opening hours that summer, and deck chairs were moved around the area as the sun moved throughut the day.
I am in no way criticizing those who used the area, they were invited to it by the café and there was no signage or other information that said that there were actually two private homes in the area. The area appeared almost as a public area, or at least as a commercial area that was "empty" outside normal opening hours. I understand that it was by no means obvious that it was also someone's home.
The annual meeting of the condominium was held and feedback was given to the business section about these conditions both before and during the annual meeting, and this was also a separate matter on the agenda for the annual meeting. It was decided and minuted that "Necessary measures must be implemented" and that we should jointly evaluate this before the next outdoor season (i.e. before spring 2019). There was still a good tone in the condominium, and I was of the opinion that we all wanted to avoid similar things in the future and that we had common goals in this respect. We agreed that by the end of 2018, each section should come up with proposals for what we thought could solve/improve the situation.
Together with my good neighbor on the floor above, I had the following suggestions for some simple and reasonable measures that we believed would probably provide the necessary shielding against all the inconveniences the café operation in the common areas of the condominium caused us:
I believe that it is quite common for restaurants that have outdoor seating to do this within a restricted area. In our proposal for measures, we also referred to the Norwegian Act relating to owner sections, where the second paragraph of section 25 states the following (translated from Norewegian):
«The owner section and common areas must not be used in such a way that other section owners suffer damage or inconvenience in an unreasonable or unnecessary manner.» (PS: Translated from Norwegian, the act relating to owner-tenant sections is currently not available in English).
We believed that we were being put at an unreasonable and unnecessary disadvantage, especially since this disadvantage could most likely be remedied by the above measures, so we found it appropriate to refer to this provision in the owner section Act. We assumed that what we had proposed, or at least something similar, would be adopted and implemented by the condominium. Especially since we jointly agreed and had unanimously agreed at the annual meeting of the condominium in the same year that "necessary measures must be implemented".
As an alternative, we also mentioned the possibility of making an agreement between the sections on exclusive use of certain parts of the common areas, i.e. in practice a kind of distribution of the right of disposal in relation to the ownership fraction.
2018 turned into 2019, and as there was still no input in relation to measures from the business section, as we agreed and adopted at the annual meeting the previous year, I called for this. It would take a few more weeks before the input was received, around mid-February 2019.
As I have already mentioned, the condominium has two residential sections and a commercial section, of which the commercial section has approx. 75% of the building/condominium fraction and the two residential sections have a total of approx. 25% of the building/condominium fraction. This distribution by condominium fraction is also reflected in the distribution of votes in the condominium's highest body, the annual general meeting, where most decisions can be made by a 2/3 majority. The commercial section in this condominium thus initially has a simple majority in most matters to be decided at the annual meeting of the condominium. This would eventually prove to be extremely problematic. Fortunately, however, there are provisions on minority protection and disqualification in the Condominium Act, and also some provisions stating that certain decisions require the agreement of all section owners in a condominium. Fortunately, our legislators have considered the idea that some people in power may abuse the power they have.
Anyway, when the input from the commercial section finally arrived, it was completely devoid of any measures to remedy the disadvantages that the use of the common areas in the condominium entails for the two homes in the condominium. It was really just a list of what rights the business section thought it had, and as we understood it, the business section thought it had the right to do almost anything it wanted. We just had to put up with the inconvenience this would cause us, and all our suggestions were rejected outright. And with that, the premises for how the relationship in the condominium would continue were set.
After this, the good tone in the condominium was completely gone, and we eventually had to seek legal assistance and hire a lawyer to assist us. The conflict became very tense, with the two of us with homes in the condominium on one side and Hanne Sine Andresen and HS Eie with their commercial section on the other. The opposing party also hired their own lawyer, and then the neighbor dispute was in full motion. It would be far too much to describe in detail, but it was a long and difficult time where the two of us with apartments were subjected to a large number of measures and decisions in the condominium that we felt were aimed directly at us, and which we believed could not have any significance beyond making it as difficult as possible for us. There was a lot of very unpleasant communication back and forth, partly through lawyers, and this is how time passed while the costs escalated.
Some examples of things we were subjected to during the period:
The whole situation had now turned into something completely different from what initially triggered this situation, namely the commercial section's use of the common areas in the condominium in such a way that it caused an unreasonable and unnecessary inconvenience to the two homes in the condominium. It is also tragicomic to note that the "rope fence" we originally proposed as a measure to remedy this situation was actually erected during the summer of 2020, and it is still standing at the time of writing. My experience then and there was, and still is, that we were "targeted".
We have now reached 2021, and it was on September 6th of that year that "our" access road was removed and replaced with grass and curbs. We tried to stop this in advance through our lawyer, who notified Hanne Sine Andresen that what she was about to carry out was an illegal measure and asked her to stop the work immediately. At the same time, a lawsuit was announced unless the work was not stopped and the area restored to its original state. But this probably bounced off like water off a duck's back, because the work continued and the road disappeared.
At this point, there was no way around a legal process to reclaim the access road we believed we had been unjustly deprived of. We started by reporting Hanne Sine Andresen to the police for vandalism, but as expected, the case was dropped fairly quickly. The parties were summoned to voluntary mediation, but Hanne Sine Andresen didn't want to attend, so nothing came of it.
The next step was to submit a so-called settlement complaint to Hedmarken Mediation Board via our lawyer, demanding that the access road to our apartments be restored. This was done on 18.8.2021, a few days before the access road was physically removed, but after the parking signs had been cut down and the access had been blocked with soil, as we realized at that time were this was going. Then we just had to wait for an answer and for the case to be heard by the mediation board. Now, the mediation board primarily tries to resolve disputes through mediation, so I initially had very little faith that this case would be resolved by the mediation board. But in order to move forward in the legal system, it is a requirement that you first go to the mediation board, and the fact that this is an extra cost that costs money that you can't easily claim to be reimbursed is just the way it is.
A court hearing was held at Hedmarken Mediation Board on March 1, 2022, where all parties were present. We were allowed to explain ourselves in turn before we were asked whether we wanted the mediation board to issue a judgment in the case. Both I and my good neighbor answered "Yes, thank you, we do". When Hanne Sine Andresen was asked the same question, I was struck by her answer, and this is a verbatim quote: "Yes, but I will not accept anything that goes against me". And that would turn out to be a completely truthful statement!
I have now learned that the Mediation Board is the lowest court of law for civil cases in Norway. They resolve cases primarily through mediation, but in some cases they can also issue a judgment for a claim. However, since the "judges" on the conciliation board are lay people and not lawyers, this limits the cases they can rule on.
It was therefore not a bombshell when we received a letter from the mediation board on 22.3.2022 stating that the case was discontinued. We were just as far along then!
Here you can see the decision from Hedmarken Mediation Board 22.03.2022 (PS: In Norwegian)
Since the document above is written in Norwegian I'm providing a "best effort" English translation of the decision from Hedmarken Mediation Board below:
The parties did not reach a settlement. The complainant and the respondent have called for a judgment. However, the Mediation Board finds that the case is too difficult and insufficiently informed that there is no basis for a judgment. The case must therefore be discontinued, cf. section 6-11 third paragraph of the Dispute Act, cf. section 6-10 fourth paragraph.
The way forward was then to sue Hanne Sine Andresen and her company HS Eie AS at Østre Innlandet District Court via our lawyer, demanding that the access road to our apartments be restored. Now the costs started rolling in even faster, so a claim for cost coverage was also included. The summons was sent to Østre Innlandet District Court on 1.7.2022. Since in Norway there is a court holiday in the period July 1 to August 15, the summons was probably in practice not received/processed until late August 2022. So here it was just to wait, again.
There was some communication back and forth between Østre Innlandet District Court and our respective lawyers before a so-called "planning meeting" was held between the same parties on October 5, 2022, where it was finally decided that the so-called main negotiations (in practice the court hearing) would be held in Østre Innlandet District Court on February 3, 2023. Then it was just a matter of waiting a little longer, once again.
I myself bought plane tickets well in advance to be in place in Hamar in good time before the actual court hearing. But, on January 17, 2023, I received a copy of the opposing party's process letter to Østre Hedmark District Court where it was requested that the case be rescheduled because the opposing party's lawyer would be on sick leave 17 days later, ie the day of the trial. This was granted by the court, so for me it was a wasted plane ticket and even more waiting. I'm not insinuating anything, and I'm not going to question the fact that someone is sick, but I must be allowed to state that I myself have never known that I was going to be sick 17 days in advance. 😀
A few weeks passed before the case was finally rescheduled and a new date was agreed upon for the court hearing, which was then scheduled for April 18, 2023. The court hearing was also held on that day in Østre Hedmark District Court with all parties present, my plane ticket was significantly more expensive this time since I did not have the time to buy it in good time. For my own part, the trial was a strange experience, and I felt very nervous even though I normally have no problems standing in front of either small or large gatherings. But it was something completely different to be in a court hearing, where someone puts on black robes and judges you. The court hearing took most of the day, and then we just had to wait again.
Finally, on May 15, 2023, I received an email from our lawyer with the verdict in the case, and it was not without excitement and nervousness that I opened that particular email. You never know, law is far from my specialty and it is not always the case that what may seem fair at first glance will be the result in a civil dispute. I had always been certain that we had a "fair" case, and I had also always believed that we would win our perfectly reasonable claim, but that's not the same as being absolutely certain. So it was a huge relief and quite satisfying to open the email and read that we had won the case on all counts, without any doubt whatsoever. This was finally over, or so we thought...
Here you can see the judgment from Østre Innlandet District Court 15.05.2023 (PS: In Norwegian)
Since the document above is written in Norwegian I'm providing a "best effort" English translation of the verdict from Østre Innlandet District Court below:
But how long was Adam in paradise? I have no idea, but I have read that some people claim that it was somewhere between 6 and 7 hours. And it didn't take much longer before we realized that this case wasn't over with the verdict from Østre Innlandet District Court. Hanne Sine Andresen is not a lady who gives up, so an appeal was lodged with Eidsivating Court of Appeal. A number of new factors were introduced in the appeal, the judgment was appealed in its entirety, and it was claimed in the appeal that Østre Innlandet District Court had made errors in relation to both the assessment of evidence and the application of the law, i.e. misunderstood both the evidence in the case and the law as such. In other words, they were, to put it another way, incompetent. Or at least that's what the appellant thought.
Then followed what appeared to me to be an almost endless series of letters back and forth between the lawyers and Eidsivating Court of Appeal, arguing for and against allowing the appeal to be brought before the Court of Appeal. This was in fact our claim in the response to the appeal, that the case should be refused to be brought before Eidsivating Court of Appeal, or alternatively that the appeal should be rejected (there is apparently a difference). Partly because the value of what is in dispute here does not exceed a certain minimum amount, but of course also because we believe the judgment is correct, that the evidence has been understood and correctly assessed and that Østre Innlandet District Court has not misunderstood the law.
At long last, a decision from Eidsivating Court of Appeal finally came, it came just before Christmas 2023 so it was a nice "Christmas present" to read that Eidsivating Court of Appeal had unanimously decided not to give its consent to advance the appeal case. And just like that, it was finally over, we thought again...
Here you can see the decision from Eidsivating Court of Appeal 07.12.2023 (PS: In Norwegian)
Since the document above is written in Norwegian I'm providing a "best effort" English translation of the decision from Eidsivating Court of Appeal below:
In the Court of Appeal's view, there are no grounds for consenting to the filing of the appeal. The case concerns a claim with very limited economic value for the appellants, and the costs of further processing of the case in the court system will clearly exceed the value of the object of the appeal. Proportionality considerations thus apply with full weight. The case has no interest in principle, and the outcome of the case depends to a significant extent on a specific assessment of the evidence as to whether the decision to remove the access was valid. The same applies to the district court's assessment of who should cover the costs of the reversal. There are not considered to be such weaknesses in the District Court's decision or case proceedings as to justify granting consent to the appeal. The District Court's failure to discuss public law aspects of the case cannot be regarded as a defect in the decision that should lead to consent to the appeal being granted. The appellants argue that points 2 and 3 of the District Court's conclusion entail a measure - the construction of an access road - which is not lawful under the zoning plan. It is claimed that the obligation to apply for the construction of an access road means that points 2 and 3 of the judgment cannot be upheld. The Court of Appeal refers to the fact that points 2 and 3 of the judgment cannot be considered to involve a new measure, but the removal of soil, grass and curbs to return the area to its previous use. It is not a question of constructing an access road, but of enabling access by car to the area, in accordance with previous use.
Accordingly, the appeal is not granted.
The Respondents have won the case and, pursuant to the general rule in section 20-2, first paragraph, of the Dispute Act, are entitled to reimbursement of their costs in the case.
The Respondents have claimed reimbursement of legal costs for the Court of Appeal in the amount of NOK 60,000 including VAT for 24 hours of work on the case. The specification of the hours spent is considered to satisfy the requirement for a statement of costs pursuant to section 20-5, fourth paragraph. There has been extensive exchange of pleadings for the decision on the question of advancing the appeal, but Court of Appeal nevertheless finds that the claim goes beyond what can be considered reasonable and necessary costs, cf. section 20-5 first paragraph of the Dispute Act. By way of comparison, reference is made to the fact that the fee claim for the District Court after the main hearing was completed was NOK 135,000 incl. VAT. Case costs for the Court of Appeal are therefore awarded on a discretionary basis for 16 hours of work, totaling NOK 40,000 including VAT.
The respondents' claims are directed against HS Eie AS alone, and not against the condominium. In the District Court also imposed sole liability for legal costs on HS Eie AS, without this being further justified in the the judgment. As a starting point, both appellants should be ordered to pay damages for respondents' legal costs. Since the Respondents' claim for legal costs is directed solely only against HS Eie AS, it could be relevant to reduce the awarded legal costs, based on a assumption that parts of the legal costs claim must be related to the condominium's involvement in the the case. However, the Court of Appeal finds that the legal costs in this case must be deemed to have been incurred in their entirety as a result of HS Eie AS' dispositions alone. It is in reality HS Eie AS' interests that have been sought to be safeguarded throughout the legal process. The Respondents' legal costs must therefore must therefore also in reality be considered to have been incurred by HS Eie AS alone, and not in any way on behalf of the condominium.
The decision is unanimous.
It was a peaceful Christmas in 2023, and both the pork ribs and the aquavit (strong and spicy Norwegian liquor) tasted a little extra good that Christmas. Now the matter was finally settled, and when the snow was gone, we would finally get "our" access road back (technically, of course, it is the condominium's access road). We would also receive compensation for many of the direct expenses we had incurred, so Christmas couldn't have been much better.
But then there was the question of how long Adam was in paradise, or some might say that after the sweet itch comes the sour burn. But Hanne Sine Andresen said that "I don't accept anything that goes against me". Darn, I'd completely forgotten that she'd already said that in the mediation board, and you can trust that woman. So here was an appeal to the Norwegian Supreme Court. "Is that possible?" some might think, and yes, it sure is. And if you've inherited the money, it's no big deal how you spend it, I was thinking. Because all this costs money, quite a bit of money, and the "pot" increases as appeals are filed.
The appeal to the Norwegian Supreme Court was filed on January 15, 2024, because the opposing party claimed that Eidsivating Court of Appeal had too been wrong in its unanimous decision. They also claimed that Eidsivating Court of Appeal had misunderstood both the facts of the case and the letter of the law, and that they had also committed procedural errors. Eidsivating Court of Appeal was apparently incompetent too, the appellant apparently thought. So the Norwegian Supreme Court had a job to do to correct all the mistakes that had been made, or so the opposing party claimed. Yes, the appeal does indeed claim that everyone other than the appellant is wrong on all points in this case. Can that really be the case? Can it be that everyone except than Hanne Sine Andresen are wrong?
The best answer to that question would come from the Appeals Committee of the Supreme Court of Norway, a committee I have now learned consists of three appointed Supreme Court judges, and which I have now also learned is tasked with assessing all cases appealed to the Supreme Court of Norway, and deciding which appeals should be allowed to proceed to the Supreme Court and which appeals should be rejected. I received the ruling from the Appeals Committee of the Supreme Court of Norway on February 5, 2024, at least they work fast in the Supreme Court!
So I guess we have the answer to who was wrong then? Or do we? In any case, the Supreme Court says in its ruling "The Appeals Committee unanimously finds it clear that the appeal cannot succeed" and thus rejects the appeal. But maybe they are wrong too? And is it perhaps the case that the Norwegian Supreme Court is incompetent too?
But now, surely this case is finally over, or is it?
Since the document above is written in Norwegian I'm providing a "best effort" English translation of the decision from the Appeals Committee of the Supreme Court of Norway below:
The Appeals Committee unanimously finds that the appeal cannot succeed. The appeal is rejected pursuant to section 30-9 second paragraph of the Dispute Act.
The respondent has claimed NOK 27 390 excluding value added tax as legal costs for the Appeals Committee. The claim for costs is directed against HS Eie AS alone. The claim is upheld.
The appeal is rejected.
HS Eie AS shall pay to (my good neighbor) and Norsin Invest AS jointly NOK 34 237 in legal costs before the Supreme Court within two weeks of notification of this judgement.
On 15 April 2024, we received an email from Hanne Sine Andresen stating that she will not put up the parking signs again, as she is required to do in the now legally binding judgment from Østre Innlandet District Court. The judgment from Østre Innlandet District Court 15.05.2023 (PS: In Norwegian) says the following (translated from Norwegian):
Hanne Sine Andresen writes in her email that she relates to the judgement from Østre Innlandet District Court, and then she argues that the parking signs should not be reinstalled and also writes some, in my opinion, nonsense about how the District Court's judgement should be interpreted.
How it is possible to interpret the third point in the verdict from Østre Innlandet District Court as something other than that the parking signs should be put up again is interesting in itself, and I realise that no matter how you argue, it is not possible to get through to Hanne Sine Andresen, who clearly demonstrates that she is true to what she said when this case was already up for consideration in Hedmarken Forliksråd, which was: "I will not accept anything that goes against me". Because that is exactly what runs like a common thread throughout this case.
I don't really want to paint the devil on the wall, but I wouldn't be very surprised if the access from the north, when and if it is reinstated as Hanne Sine Andresen is sentenced to do, is not at all as it was before she carried out her illegal measures. Anything else would be inconsistent with what she has done in this case so far.
Is it possible to perceive any of this as anything other than (further) harassment?
I must honestly admit that I am a little flabbergasted by what I perceive as a kind of contempt for the court and its decision. 😲
A common thread running through this whole story is that some people will never give up. If I myself had the attitude that "I don't accept anything that goes against me anyway", and if I had also thought that everyone else except myself was wrong, then I would probably have behaved in the same way as Hanne Sine Andresen chooses to do.
It did not come as a great surprise when we realised that the "access" that was restored a day in late April 2024 was something completely different from the original access road. Hanne Sine Andresen chose to lay a form of grass reinforcement in the form of two "wheel tracks" over the lawn. Even though some may subjectively believe that this was a "prettier" solution, the chosen solution cannot in any way be equated in terms of use with the significantly wider access road that was originally there.
The fact that others do not perceive this as an access road is well illustrated by the fact that only half an hour after the work to establish the "wheel tracks" was completed, a car parked right in front of it. It doesn't look like an access road, and when the "grass grows back" it will be even less visible. But there can be no doubt that this is also the purpose of doing it this way.
We could not accept the situation that now arose, namely that after having won in all possible court instances, we were still without a full-fledged access road, because Hanne Sine Andresen still refuses to carry out the obligation to act imposed on her through a now final judgment. So on June 13th 2023, via our lawyer, we sent a petition for enforcement of the now final judgment to Østre Innlandet District Court. The claim was simply that we ourselves should be authorized to carry out the return to the access road on behalf of Hanne Sine Andresen, to be reimbursed for further legal costs incurred, and to be reimbursed in advance for the costs of returning the access road to its original state.
There was some back and forth, and Hanne Sine Andresen argued to the court that she had made an appropriate return of the land and that she had complied with the points in the district court's judgment. She also argued that the access that has now been restored is both functional, practical and aesthetically pleasing. To me directly, she also stated that she was proud of what she had done and that she had corrected a “disgrace” on the property.
On July 23rd 2024, the answer came from Østre Innlandet District Court, and I can't really say that I was surprised by what the court decided, namely that we were fully vindicated on all points. Anything else would have been completely unreasonable, although Hanne Sine Andresen probably still believes the opposite.
Conclusion from Østre Innlandet District Court regarding compulsory execution 18.07.2024
Since the document above is written in Norwegian I'm providing a "best effort" English translation of the decision from Østre Innlandet District Court below:
September 9, 2024 was finally the day when the access road would be resurrected. It was exactly three years and three days ago today that Hanne Sine Andresen removed our access road. The contractor who originally gave us a quote for the job did not have any spare capacity this fall, so we hurriedly got a similar quote from Flagstad Maskin. Note that Flagstad Maskin has no role in the conflict in the condominium Sameiet Strandvegen 172/174 other than that the company was engaged to restore the access road that was unlawfully removed by one party in the conflict. Which they did in an excellent way. So I can definitely recommend Flagstad Maskin, which I experienced as both skilled and flexible, to anyone who needs similar services from a contractor.
I would also like to take this opportunity to praise the “cable guy” I had booked through https://ledningsportalen.no/. He showed up as agreed just before the work was to start and drew up where he thought the conduit for fiber cable was located at the site boundary. He hit the exact spot where the conduit was located, so it was easy to find it and extend it to the house wall.
And last but not least, a big thank you to a pleasant and super-flexible installer from the company Netel AS. Despite the fact that no order for a fiber connection had been placed with Eidsiva Energi AS, which owns the fiber cable in the area, he made sure that I got a a roll of conduit that I could lay belown the ground all the way to the house wall, and the next day he came and spliced it into the conduit that goes to a junction box a little further down the street, and terminated the conduit in a junction box on the wall of the house. Extra service, that has to be Netel!
So, is this story finally over, or is there more to come?
Initiating legal proceedings is a grave matter that demands careful consideration. One must be cognizant of the potential economic and personal ramifications prior to pursuing such a course of action.
Before resorting to a lawsuit, you should consider other ways to resolve the conflict, such as:
It is strongly recommended that you consult with a lawyer before making the decision to file a lawsuit. A lawyer can give you an assessment of your case, inform you of your rights and options, and help you evaluate the risks of litigation.
Filing a lawsuit is a significant decision that should be made carefully. It is important to weigh the potential benefits against the costs and risks. By being aware of the consequences, you can make a more informed decision.
It's also crucial to remember that in a private lawsuit, the outcome is typically like what ABBA said in 1980: "The winner takes it all". To put it simply, losing a private lawsuit is costly.
The exorbitant legal costs are a serious threat to the rule of law. Many people, including myself, are understandably intimidated by the prospect of spending hundreds of thousands of kroner on litigation. Even if you're confident of winning, there's no guarantee. That's why I believe that a negotiated settlement is always preferable, if it can be reached. Unfortunately, in this specific case, the parties were so far apart that a settlement was simply impossible.
You will see some pictures that illustrate some of the things mentioned in this story if you click here.
I will regularly and irregularly update this page with any, in my view, important events in the case.
Why write this down, some might ask?
Well, I don't really have any other answer than that it was what I wanted to do. And as I write in the summary of the story, I hope that this can be of help and inspiration to others who find themselves in a similar situation. That is my main motivation.
Why publish it publicly, some might also ask?
To that, I would say something like "he who participates in the game must endure the consequences", or maybe "you reap what you sow". Or something else just as cheesy. 😀
Is revenge possibly a motive here, and am I perhaps meeting myself at the door?
Well, maybe, just a little bit. Or maybe I would respond with something similar to what Gene Hackman said in a scene in the excellent movie Crimson Tides: «They're fueling their missiles, we don't have time to f*** around!».
Figuratively speaking, of course - but I actually take this very personally and feel that we are both "under attack", because I have no doubt that what was done here was personal and directly aimed at me/us. And when you're under attack, you "hit back", at least if you're not the type to "turn the other cheek". And as the British author Edward Bulwer-Lytton put it in his play "Richelieu" already in 1839: «The pen is mightier than the sword!».
Finally, I would like to point out that this story is told from the author's point of view, and that Hanne Sine Andresen has not been given the opportunity to comment or in any way contribute to the story and how it is written, other than through her own actions. I believe this is a correct and fair presentation of the facts of the case, but I am aware that Hanne Sine Andresen will most likely not agree with that.
Note: As stated in the judgment from Østre Innlandet District Court and the decision from Eidsivating Court of Appeal, there are no restrictions on the public reproduction of these. I assume that the same applies to the decision from Hedmarken Mediation Board and the ruling from the Appeals Committee of the Supreme Court of Norway. I also rely on the Act relating to mediation and procedure in civil disputes (The Dispute Act), the dispute act chapter 6 section 6-9 and the dispute act chapoter 11 section 14 , which deals with the public right of access and inspection in civil disputes.
→ You can read a summarized version of this story here ←
→ Click here if you have any comments or feedback for this website ←