Purpose
Review of a WEG annual statement of accounts on two levels: Plausibility (do the figures add up, is the distribution key correct) and Decision-making competence (was the owners' meeting even permitted to resolve in this way).
Key innovation of the WEMoGreform (in force since 01.12.2020): Under Section 28 (2) WEG, the owners no longer resolve "the annual statement of accounts", but only the statement of account top-up — the difference between the amount owed and the advance payments already resolved. Anyone who resolves "the 2024 annual statement of accounts" as a whole exceeds the decision-making competence; the resolution is contestable.
Inputs
- Economic plan (total and individual economic plan) for the year in question
- Annual statement of accounts (total statement of accounts of the community)
- Individual statement of accounts of the individual owner
- MEA key / distribution key according to the declaration of division (co-ownership shares)
- the resolution adopted in its wording (resolution collection)
- if applicable, the manager's asset report
Sub-agent architecture
- Researcher provides the relevant provisions (Sections 16, 17, 28 WEG) and verified BGH case law on decision-making competence under WEMoG.
- Drafter prepares the plausibility and competence review as well as, if applicable, the draft of a statement of grounds for contestation.
- Reviewer checks whether only the statement of account top-up was resolved, whether the asset report is available and whether the distribution key corresponds to the declaration of division.
Procedure
1. Economic plan and advance payment resolution (Section 28 (1) WEG)
Under Section 28 (1) WEG , the condominium owners resolve on the calling in of advance payments on the basis of the economic plan. Check:
- Is there a resolved economic plan for the accounting year?
- Do the advance payments estimated in the economic plan match the target amounts applied in the individual statement of accounts?
The economic plan is the benchmarkagainst which the later statement of account top-up is measured.
2. Annual statement of accounts and statement of account top-up (Section 28 (2) WEG)
After the end of the financial year, under Section 28 (2) WEG , the owners resolve on the additional contributions or the adjustment of the resolved advance payments — the so-called statement of account top-up.
Core point of decision-making competence: The subject of the resolution is only the statement of account top-up, not the entire annual statement. The statement itself is only the calculation basis, not the subject of the resolution. A supplementary payment results as the difference:
Abrechnungsspitze = Soll laut Jahresabrechnung − beschlossene Vorschüsse (Wirtschaftsplan)
positive Spitze → Nachschuss (Nachzahlung des Eigentümers)
negative Spitze → Anpassung / Guthaben
Verified case law: BGH, Urt. v. 11.04.2025 – V ZR 96/24, NJW 2025, 1504 = NZM 2025, 351 (dejure.org) — the supplementary payment/statement peak resolution can be contested in part; the decision confirms that post-WEMoG only the statement peak is the subject of the resolution, not the entire statement.
Consequence for practice: If "the annual statement" is resolved as a whole, the resolution is ultra vires and must be declared (partly) invalid upon challenge. The challenge can be specifically limited to the defective parts of the statement peak.
3. Asset report (§ 28 para. 4 WEG)
Under § 28 para. 4 WEG , after the end of the calendar year the manager must prepare an asset report and make it available to the owners. It presents the status of the common funds (in particular the maintenance reserve) and an itemized list of the essential common property.
Check: Is an asset report available? Its absence is a separate defect; however, the asset report is not itself the subject of the statement peak resolution, but a separate duty of the manager.
4. Distribution key / co-ownership shares (§ 16 para. 2 WEG)
Under § 16 para. 2 WEG , the owners bear the costs and burdens in proportion to their co-ownership shares, unless a different key applies by resolution or agreement.
Check:
- Does the key applied correspond to the declaration of division or an effective amending resolution?
- Have consumption-dependent costs (heating/water) been correctly removed from the co-ownership share key?
- Do the individual statements add up exactly to the total statement (plausibility check)?
5. Due date (§ 28 para. 3 WEG)
The owners resolve on the due date and type of payment under § 28 para. 3 WEG. The supplementary payment generally becomes due upon adoption of the resolution or on the resolved date.
6. Default, collection and deprivation (§ 17 WEG)
If the owner does not pay the due supplementary payment, he is in default; the community can collect the housing fee through the courts. As an ultima ratio , in the case of serious, repeated breaches of duty — in particular substantial housing fee arrears — deprivation of the residential property under § 17 WEG may be considered. The prerequisite is a breach so serious that continuation of the community cannot reasonably be expected of the remaining owners; as a rule, prior warning is required. § 17 WEG is only a last resort, not a regular instrument of collection.
7. Result
Summary assessment: (a) does the resolution preserve the decision-making authority (only the assessment top-up?), (b) is the assessment plausible (allocation key, totals, asset report), (c) recommendation — confirm, amend or challenge within the time limit.
Risks / typical mistakes
- Resolution on "the entire annual statement" instead of only on the assessment top-up → exceeding the decision-making authority under § 28 (2) WEG, subject to challenge (cf. BGH, judgment of 11.04.2025 – V ZR 96/24, dejure.org). This is the most common WEMoG mistake.
- Missing asset report (§ 28 (4) WEG) → independent defect; request the asset report subsequently.
- Wrong allocation key → deviation from the co-ownership shares without an effective resolution under § 16 (2) WEG.
- Challenge period missed → observe the one-month period under § 45 WEG; after that, even the resolution contrary to the authority becomes final.
- Deprivation § 17 WEG prematurely threatened → ultima ratio, not a means of pressure in an ongoing service charge dispute.
Output format
PRÜFUNG JAHRESABRECHNUNG / HAUSGELD — WEG (post-WEMoG)
I. Beschlusskompetenz (§ 28 Abs. 2 WEG)
- Beschlossen wurde: <Wortlaut>
- Nur Abrechnungsspitze oder ganze Abrechnung? → <Bewertung>
- Maßstab: BGH, Urt. v. 11.04.2025 – V ZR 96/24 ([dejure.org](https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=2025-04-11&Aktenzeichen=V%20ZR%2096/24))
II. Wirtschaftsplan & Vorschüsse (§ 28 Abs. 1 WEG)
- Vorschuss-Soll: <…> | Wirtschaftsplan vorhanden: <ja/nein>
III. Abrechnungsspitze / Nachschuss (§ 28 Abs. 2 WEG)
- Soll − Vorschüsse = Spitze: <Betrag> → Nachschuss/Guthaben
IV. Vermögensbericht (§ 28 Abs. 4 WEG): <vorhanden / fehlt>
V. Verteilungsschlüssel (§ 16 Abs. 2 WEG)
- Miteigentumsanteile korrekt angewandt: <ja/nein>
- Einzelabrechnungen = Gesamtabrechnung: <ja/nein>
VI. Fälligkeit (§ 28 Abs. 3 WEG): <Termin>
VII. Verzug / Beitreibung, ggf. Entziehung (§ 17 WEG, ultima ratio)
VIII.Ergebnis & Empfehlung: <bestätigen / nachbessern / anfechten,
Frist § 45 WEG>