High-speed storage at a special rate?
Clearance procedures take a long time and cost a lot. Does it have to be that way?
You are the owner / landlord of a flat or a house? Then you know the problem with difficult tenants. But which ways are there for owners / landlords to shorten the period from the termination of the lease by notice until the actual eviction of the apartment and thereby save cash?
For owners / landlords often a big problem: The tenant refuses to leave the apartment after the termination of the lease voluntarily. Eviction and release of the leased property must therefore be compulsory.
Anyone who does not want to run the risk of being prosecuted requires a so-called eviction notice, on the basis of which the responsible bailiff enforces eviction by means of foreclosure. Classical eviction title in this sense is the court ruling, which ideally goes on a corresponding eviction action of the owner / landlord.
Annoying for the plaintiff owner / landlord: The judicial process to the judgment takes a long time (with regional differences depending on the court usually 3 up to 6 months) and costs a lot (a lower / middle four-digit amount is reached quickly). The subsequent foreclosure by the bailiff costs time and money. Not infrequently pass weeks / months until an appointment for forced eviction is found; Depending on the extent of the work involved, four-digit costs may also be incurred by the freight forwarder responsible for clearing the bailiff.
Does the tenant then still during the judicial proceedings and foreclosure proceedings no more rental payments and / or the apartment after the forced eviction first elaborately rehabilitated before a new lease can take place, the total financial damage on the part of the owner / landlord quickly reach astronomical heights.
The fact that this damage would be borne by the tenant, if any, is only a small consolation, if the tenancy - as in practice often - ultimately ended because of insolvency of the tenant.
Almost always, therefore, there is the risk that the owner / landlord - completely or at least partially - "sit" on the aforementioned costs. The fact that even economically well-off owners / landlords can reach the limits of their financial capacity is obvious.
The above makes clear: For owners / landlords, it is of great interest to deviate from the "standard way" in order to save as much time and cost as possible and to prevent the financial damage with the increasing duration of the dispute with the tenant multiplied.
And in fact: there are ways and means to reduce the time to eviction and reduce the costs incurred, or at least not increase the financial damage lightly. In particular, the following "instruments" can be helpful:
The conclusion of a so-called eviction settlement should always be considered, in which the tenant undertakes to dispose of the apartment under certain conditions (e.g. partial waiver of accrued rental debts) and on a certain date - which ideally is (well) before the date which could be evacuated by standard means (eviction action, judgment, foreclosure) - to surrender. With the appropriate negotiating skills, results can be achieved here that are, on the bottom line, clearly preferable to the standard route in terms of time and money.
In particular, for owners / landlords who have terminated the tenancy due to rent arrears on the part of the tenant and now threaten to come in financial difficulties due to the still missing rent payments, the application for a so-called. Security arrangement may be beneficial.
According to § 283a paragraph 1 ZPO, the court orders under certain conditions at the request of the plaintiff owner / landlord that the defendant tenant due to the rents that are due during the time in which the eviction process is due to pay security.
If the renter does not comply with the security order, the court may, at the request of the owner / landlord, order the eviction of the dwelling by means of an injunction, § 940a Paragraph 3 ZPO. This means that it is no longer possible, in particular for so-called rental nomads, to abuse the time-consuming rental process for remaining in the apartment free of payment of rent payments.
Further cases in which an eviction of the apartment can be ordered by interim injunction, regulate § 940a paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 ZPO.
According to § 940a paragraph 1 ZPO the eviction of the apartment may be ordered by interim injunction, if prohibited personal power (possibly with squatters) or a specific danger to life or limb exists.
Sometimes it happens that first a successful eviction process is conducted against the tenant, a corresponding judgment (= eviction title) goes to the owner / landlord, but then, when the eviction of the apartment by the bailiff suddenly turns out that the tenant Apartment another person, eg a subtenant, left. If this other person is not in the eviction notice, this eviction notice can not be enforced against it and the apartment can not therefore be forcibly evicted. Basically, the owner / landlord would have to raise a new eviction action in these cases, to obtain a corresponding eviction title against just this person. It would take a lot of time again and there would be immense additional costs.
Remedy under certain conditions § 940a paragraph 2 ZPO. The provision states that, if necessary, an eviction may also be ordered against the other person who is now in the apartment by means of a preliminary injunction.
Enforcement also saves time and money. According to § 885a paragraph 1 ZPO the enforcement order can be limited to measures according to § 885 para. 1 ZPO, ie to the publication of the apartment (so-called Berliner eviction).
As a result, only the tenant is removed from the apartment as part of the foreclosure order, so that the bailiff does not have to pay an advance for the eviction, storage and recovery of the tenant's belongings. Because it is not necessary in these cases that the bailiff first assigns a forwarding agency, with which in turn only a suitable date for eviction must be found, additional time can be saved.