Can a German declaration of division (Teliungserkl&#228;rung) or community ordinance (Gemeinschaftsordnung) prohibit long-term rentals? Consider an apartment block consisting of three equal units A, B, and C, located in Bavaria, Germany. At present, all are owner-occupied and the Community of Apartment Owners (Wohnungseigentümergemeinschaft) has three members Asani, Bahar, and Camille, with equal power. Units B and C are on the market and are bought by Diya, who decides to rent them out. Now Asani finds himself having a minority in the Community of Apartment Owners and, as an owner-occupier, having other needs and interests than Diya, but Diya can possibly push through or block any decisions taken by majority vote (depending on the specifics in the declaration of division (Teilungserklärung), a person owning two units may have either one or two votes). This situation is not desirable for Asani. Is it legally possible in Bavaria, Germany, to enact a rule that restricts the rights of owners to rent out their property long-term? For example, could it contain a rule that every owner must live in their property, or that the majority of homes must be owner-occupied, or that new rentals are not allowed, or that everyone who owns a property in the building must also live in the building, or something similar? Such a rule would need to be changeable only by unanimous consent, otherwise Diya owning two out of three properties could simply abolish the rule, so Asani, Bahar, and Camille would together agree on such a rule (perhaps Asani would pay Bahar and Camille in case they fear the rule might reduce the sale value, but that is separate from the legal question). I've searched the web about restrictions on renting out, but all I find is either about restrictions on short-term (holiday) rentals, or about owner-occupiers objecting to specific prospective tenants. I couldn't find anything about the possibility to restrict long-term rentals in general. Is there any law that would prevent the rules governing the property as a whole (such as the Declaration of Division (Teilungserklärung) or the Community Ordinance (Gemeinschaftsordnung)) from containing such a restriction? I am primarily interested in the situation in Bavaria, Germany, but for context it's also interesting to know the situation elsewhere.
Yes, you can put pretty much anything you like into the co-op statutes. You are actually interested in whether it makes a difference, though, whether the sheriff will come enforce a court order if it came to a trial. a rule that every owner must live in their property, or that everyone who owns a property in the building must also live in the building, or By virtue of indirect effect of basic rights (mittelbarer Wirkung von Grundrechten) a court will never issue an order mandating Diya to live in her apartment, Art. 11 GG. The sheriff will not forcefully “shove” her into her apartment: “You must live here now!” that the majority of homes must be owner-occupied, or Similar, but Art. 2 I GG. Vacancy of apartments is legal in Germany. that new rentals are not allowed, or As soon as Diya is recorded in the Wohnungsgrundbuch (apartment register) as the new owner of units B and C, she incontestably assumes the role of owner about said units. If she rents them out despite the co-op statutes forbidding so, she does nothing illegal (that means breaking state/federal law). After all she is indeed the owner, so there is no fraud involved, § 263 Ⅰ StGB. The fact that she agreed to not rent out is a matter between Diya and the co-op. No court will evict the new tenants from units B and C, because Diya has breached her obligations. However, it might be a just cause to oust Diya from the co-op, § 17 WEG. Yet still it requires severe grounds as it essentially means exercising eminent domain, Art. 14 Ⅲ GG. I tentatively claim it won’t work out as long as Diya pays her share in maintenance and the tenants chosen by Diya are well-behaved. something similar? You will need something that produces evidence. “Diya does not live in unit B” is a claim that needs corroboration in court. […] restrict long-term rentals in general. […] Tenancy agreements are by default unlimited in time. Short-term rents are sort of “forbidden” except if justified by one of the reasons named in § 575 Ⅰ BGB. Hence restricting long-term rentals borders on a blanket-ban on all rentals.
Can the council cut down a tree I plant on common land? Yes. When you plant a tree on common land, you are making a donation to the commons and the tree is no longer yours. The fact that it is common land resolves the question. This is really obvious in the fact pattern where you plant a tree in middle of Hyde Park, and is less obvious, but still true, in the fact pattern in the question. But, be aware that lots of land that is commonly believed to be common land (particularly in the fact pattern in the question), is in fact, private land subject to an easement in favor of the public. There is a fair amount of micro-variation in the common ownership v. private land with easement norm between different neighborhoods in the same municipality, that flows largely from customary practice at the time that particular neighborhoods were developed and deeded (which can span more than a thousand years in some U.K. cities), which has gone back and forth over time. Where there is private land subject to a public easement, a property owner would retain ownership of the land and the tree, subject only to limitations associated with the easement. But, those limitations might very well authorize the Council to remove or cut down the tree to further the purpose of the easement (e.g. if it was blocking a sidewalk with its growth, or threatened utilities for which the easement was created). Of course, in some circumstance, the Council can enforce general regulatory laws that authorize cutting down trees on private land (e.g. tree infected with something that could spread to all trees of that type in the area). Also, it is possible that some public land by be under the control of an entity other than a Council, like a neighborhood association, or another governmental entity (e.g. in the case of a verge along family housing on a military base, or in the case of rental properties on land derived from by a university's land, or in housing associated with a royal palace). In those cases, somebody with responsibility for the land could cut down the tree, but not the local Council.
Inferring from the question, it appears that: The tenancy is an Assured Shorthold Tenancy. The tenancy agreement started on 16 December 2014. The initial fixed term was for 12 months. (Please comment below if any of this is incorrect). A Section 21 order gives notice that, unless the tenant leaves by the date given in the document, the landlord will begin legal proceedings against the tenant, in order to obtain a court order forcing the tenant to leave. To answer the OP's questions: Does it mean that she wants to use her right to cancel the contract after 2 months? It looks like that to me but I am not 100% sure. Yes - but if this is before the end of the fixed term (which I'm assuming is 15 December) there must be a clause in the tenancy agreement (normally called a "break clause") allowing the fixed term to be terminated early. If there is no break clause, then you cannot be asked to leave before the end of the fixed term. What does it mean "after 16/11/2015"? After can mean anything... even end of contract in December. Yes. The landlord would like you to leave before the date shown - but if you don't, the landlord can begin legal proceedings any time after that. Is this a legal document or just something she made up? It is a legal document. Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 allows a landlord to ask a tenant to leave without having to give a reason. The landlord must meet certain conditions in order for the notice to be valid. What happens if I want to leave the house later because I don't find alternative? You'll need to discuss that with the landlord. However, if you don't leave by the end of the fixed term, you are entitled to stay (and pay rent!) until a court (not the landlord) orders your eviction. EDIT: This website goes into a lot more detail about the whole Section 21 procedure.
It's not impossible. Here are the regulations. Single- and two-family dwellings are legal, as are mobile homes. But the activity is not necessarily allowed (since you aren't residing there). &quot;Customary home occupations&quot; are allowed, but that means businesses customarily run out of a home like making / selling homemade arts &amp; crafts, selling antiques, education, but also &quot;Any other uses which the Board of Zoning Appeals finds to be of similar character&quot;. However, &quot;Public Uses&quot; are allowed with an approved site plan, spelled out in §303; or &quot;Rural businesses&quot; with similar approved plan. This means you have to give lots of information about the site and the plan has to be approved. There doesn't seem to be a specific prohibition, and the use seems consistent with the principle that This district is created to establish and preserve areas with agricultural and rural qualities by allowing for traditional Agricultural Uses along with low-density residential activities but the Sevier County Board of Zoning Appeals might feel otherwise. A counter-indication is that §504.3.1 lists for R-2M zones &quot;Bed and Breakfast Inns, limited to a maximum of four (4) bedrooms for rent&quot;, thus the zone must be more residential for B&amp;B usage to be accepted. Since the standards are not clear, the only solution is to officially inquire with the Zoning Board.
Because an owner cannot tell another owner what they can and can't do with their own property The quoted paragraph clearly sets out some of the things the leasehold arrangement allows: &quot;... set out the rights and responsibilities of the residents, such as funding the maintenance of the building and placing restrictions on antisocial behavior.&quot; When you own land, you own it; and no one can tell you what you can and can't do with it, not even your co-owners (governments excepted). Want to run chickens? Sure: it's your land. Spinal Tap your stereo to 11 at 2 am? Sure: it's your land. Become a hoarder? Sure, it's your land. When there's a single dwelling on the land, none of that is a problem. When there are multiple dwellings on the land, as in a block of flats (apartments for the Americans among us) then some of these are likely to be problematical. But they aren't problems the law cares about because you all own the property. Different common law jurisdictions have arrived at different solutions to this problem but the UK has particular difficulties because people have been owning land there for a long time. A lot longer than in the USA, Australia or New Zealand. This is quite an elegant solution: all the owners own the land but each of them have a lease over their own flat and that is a contract the law will enforce.
Two factors are relevant. First, the language of the lease sometimes contains an abandonment clause that makes vacancy a default under the lease. This is common in a commercial lease, as vacancies can undermine the apparent viability of a strip mall or mall, but these provisions are less common in residential leases where the rent is current. Second, since this in New York City, there is an issue of rent-control. Rent-control benefits are available only for residential leases, and if you do not live there for long enough, it could be reclassified as a pied-a-terre and cease to qualify as a rent-controlled apartment. If your apartment is not a rent-controlled apartment, this isn't a concern, but if it is, further research related to continued qualification as a rent-controlled apartment in New York City is necessary.
I have read that Assured Shorthold Tenancies of less than 6 months are allowed, but you are not allowed to evict a tenant before 6 months. That applies only to section 21 (&quot;no fault&quot;) evictions. Specifically, according to section 21 of the Housing Act 1988, a notice can't be served in the first 4 months of a tenancy (section 21(4B)), and can't take effect in the first 6 months (section 21(5)). Section 8 evictions, which require one or more of the reasons listed in Schedule 2 of the Act, do not have this restriction - though only some of them can be used during the fixed term part of the tenancy, and they must be listed in the tenancy agreement in order to be used in that way. Will I have to wait until he has actually left before I can arrange an AST with new tenants? Yes, but that's always true. It's very unwise for a new tenancy agreement to be signed until the previous tenants have moved out, because if they don't leave before the new agreement takes effect, the landlord is now committed to finding accommodation for the new tenants. This is why tenancy agreements are often only signed on the first day of the tenancy.
No. It is an often repeated misconception that "Freedom of Speech" means that no one can restrict speech ever. This is not the case. Let us look at the US Consitution's First Admendment, which contains the "Freedom of Speech" clause: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press... (Emphasis mine) As one can see, the First Amendment only restricts government actions. (It also stops other branches of government from restricting speech, because those branches are innately weak with very few powers granted to them by the constitution; the majority of executive or judicial branches powers are granted to them by a law passed by Congress, and Congress cannot give a power to another party that they do not possess). A Home Owner Association (HOA) is not a government or government agency; it is a private organization (and it is not the same as the "private management company" that manages the condominium, which is probably in the employ of the HOA; which also means that emailing the manager is not emailing the HOA board). Their power stems from a contract, one that your friend signed when they bought the property (one of the conditions agreed to is that a member who sells or gifts their HOA-member property can only do so to someone who also agrees to the contract). That said, HOAs can be horribly abusive and many states have laws that restrict what kinds of rules and penalties can be applied by an HOA. But that is not a constitutional matter (at either the Federal or State level), nor a question of "Freedom of Speech", but rather a limitation on the kinds of behaviors that can be enforced by contract.