→ You can read the full story here ←
I, Christer Johansen, own a residential section (apartment) in the condominium referred to in the text through my wholly owned company Norsin Invest AS. I have a good neighbor that also owns a residential section in the condominium. The third main character in the story is Hanne Sine Andresen, who owns the commercial section in the condominium through her company HS Eie AS.
In the summer of 2017, the commercial section started operating a café in parts of its premises. The café guests used the common areas, which created inconvenience for those of us who lived there. We suggested a few simple measures to shield us from the inconvenience, but the business section rejected our suggestions. After this, the tone in the condominium became increasingly bitter. We sought legal assistance, and it was a long and difficult period of hard confrontation. We were subjected to a number of measures that we believed were aimed at us in retaliation. In the fall of 2021, Hanne Sine Andresen removed the access road to our apartments. We reported her to the police for vandalism and filed a settlement complaint, and eventually we also took her to court.
The case proceeded to court. After a lengthy and costly legal process, we were ultimately victorious following proceedings in the District Court, the Court of Appeals, and the Norwegian Supreme Court's Appeals Committee. We were awarded damages for the majority of our financial losses, but we were required to sue Hanne Sine Andresen once more in the District Court and seek enforcement to compel the restoration of the access road to its original condition and the reinstatement of the parking signs in accordance with the now final judgment, as she continued to refuse to comply. It took exactly three years and three days from the removal of the access road until its eventual restoration.
This story is an example of how a neighborhood dispute can escalate into a legal nightmare. It is important to remember that you always have rights and that you should not let yourself be trampled on. I hope that this story can be of help and inspiration to others who find themselves in a similar situation. It's important not to give up and to stand up for your rights.
I have chosen to include some images that illustrate some of the things described in this story. You can find links to these images if you choose to read the full story here.
I will regularly and irregularly update this page with any, in my view, important events in the case.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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:
This is a short version of the story. For a more detailed description, please read the full story and see the attached documents.
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 the full story here ←
→ Click here if you have any comments or feedback for this website ←