No Need for Alternative Offers When Owners Appoint Solicitors

Sept 26, 2025 Benn-Ibler Rechtsanwälte

According to the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, hereinafter BGH), apartment owners are not required to seek alternative quotations when appointing solicitors or experts, even in cases where a fee agreement is to be established.

Property developer challenges approval of solicitor and expert witness costs

The plaintiff, who is both a member of the apartment owners’ association and a property developer, challenged several resolutions passed by the association. The context for this dispute arose when the administrator engaged experts and a law firm to examine construction defects without obtaining prior approval through official resolutions. These actions were subsequently ratified at a later owners’ meeting.

Although the local court dismissed the action, the Munich, Germany, Regional Court subsequently invalidated the resolutions on the grounds that alternative offers were not provided.

Legal service prices can’t be compared; trust and suitability matter most

The BGH overturned the regional court’s decision and restored the original judgment of the local court, determining that alternative legal service offers do not furnish apartment owners with a sufficiently reliable basis for informed decisions. Unlike labor services, legal mandates are influenced by a range of external factors affecting their scope, duration, and outcomes, rendering price comparisons alone inadequate for objective evaluation. Instead, essential considerations include the provider’s professional qualifications and the foundation of trust between parties. This standard equally extends to the appointment of expert consultants.

In addition, the BGH confirmed that apartment owners can retroactively approve administrative measures that were initiated without a resolution, provided that these measures are in accordance with proper administration. In the present case, the commissions were necessary due to the threat of the statute of limitations and were therefore lawful.

BGH V ZR 76/24 (18 July 2025)