Neighbor's lawsuit against approved building permit

Good evening,

I consider her quite competent, as she is both an engineer and a lawyer

Interesting combination

The lawsuit itself does not yet have a suspensive or rescinding effect; that would only happen if the neighbor wins in court.

What prompted you to let the BV lie dormant? Hopefully not unverified statements from unknown sources (internet)?

I find the neighbor’s approach puzzling, no question – a word between neighbors could surely have contributed to clarification/solution. From my point of view, you are overreacting to that.

Although I am not a lawyer, it is a fact that the building authority responsible for you has approved your building application – including exemptions from the development plan. Unless you received a written request to stop your BV, why did you order a construction stop?

I want to suggest two ways for you that can be pursued in parallel. Implement Eve’s good suggestion and also wait for the conversation with your lawyer. Even if there is a builder who has been in a similar situation, it is always the case with legal disputes that in the end a judgment is issued. From the perspective of the losing party, no justice is done. Meaning, comparable disputes do not necessarily lead to the same judgment.

Rhineland greetings

What made you decide to let the BV rest?

The guilty conscience, which is unfounded, nevertheless:

The architect of our construction company has formulated corresponding exemption applications, which became necessary due to the terrain (the property is located on a slight slope):

[*]at one corner of the building, a fill of 1.40 m is necessary (according to the development plan, max. 1 m allowed)
[*]the maximum wall height is 7.60 m, whereby after leveling the planned terrain, 6.95 m remain visible (according to the development plan, max. 7 m above original terrain)

and of course the fear of one's own risk

Whereas I can quite understand the neighbor’s frustration with the district office. You yourself apply for a stone wall one row higher and it doesn't get approved, and then suddenly the neighbors set up a "high-rise" next door (exaggeratedly speaking). I would probably be annoyed about that and swallow the frustration eventually, but some are a bit more quarrelsome and take it to court. You are now just the ones suffering because of it.

You can certainly keep your fingers crossed
I don't have any advice. Yes, maybe talk to the neighbor - sooner or later there will be a confrontation anyway, so it's certainly better to choose the timing and the "weapon" yourself

I might consider that advice after the lawyer appointment, maybe we'll find a way to come to some kind of agreement. After all, you’re supposed to be able to live next to each other afterwards.

Good evening,

Interesting combination

What made you decide to put the construction on hold? Hopefully not unchecked statements from unknown sources (internet)?

I find the neighbor’s behavior strange, no question - a word between neighbors could definitely have helped to clarify/solve the situation. From my point of view, you are overreacting.

Although I am not a lawyer, it is a fact that the building authority responsible for you has approved your building permit - including exemptions from the development plan. Unless you have received a written request to stop your construction, why did you initiate a construction stop?

I would like to suggest two approaches, which can be pursued in parallel. Implement Eve’s good suggestion and also wait for the conversation with your lawyer. Even if there is a builder in a similar situation, in legal disputes there is always a judgment at the end. From the perspective of the losing party, it is precisely not justice that has been served. In other words, even comparable disputes do not necessarily lead to the same ruling.

Greetings from the Rhineland

The recommendation to put the construction site on hold came from the legal advisor at the district office, with whom I had a phone conversation in this context. This person also stated that any further construction is at our own risk (but they also understand that sometimes a stop is not easily possible). Our builder also recommended this to me (after he had again enquired with the district office regarding this).

It is definitely clear to me that the situations are not comparable, and I definitely do not expect the outcome of the lawsuit to be predicted here in the forum.

I can quite understand the neighbor’s frustration with the district office. You apply for a building one row of stones higher and it doesn’t get approved, and then suddenly the neighbor builds a "high-rise" next door (to exaggerate). I would probably be annoyed about that and swallow the frustration at some point, but some people are more litigious and take it to court. You are now the ones suffering as a result.

On the one hand, I can understand that, although the neighbor probably did not have the hillside problem, since he is located at the foot of the hill (even though I don’t exactly know what the original terrain looked like here, since it is a former building area). I also seem to recall that our builder/architect once mentioned that in the current development area most people need these exemptions because of the hillside location (the builder has already built at least two other houses here).

This problem is unfortunately not an isolated case and is homegrown on the part of the building authorities.

In planning, it is indeed possible to decouple the planning height from the original ground level and work with reasonable target heights. This means more effort in preparing the development plan, but it is especially helpful when the standard of 1m does not get you anywhere.

Since there are no [Baulasteintragungen] in Bavaria (which would presumably be necessary in other federal states), it can lead to the registration of an easement here, which may become obsolete after completion. This depends on whether the neighbor would have had to be involved in the formulated deviation by consent/signature or not and how this is presented structurally.

The situation is therefore pretty bad for you, but the black Peter lies with the building authority, even if they will probably tell you otherwise.

Regards Dirk Grafe

Without knowing for sure, I am of the opinion that if the approval should later be invalidated, it is not you who bears the risk, but the approval authority ("official liability").
It is also clear that the district office tells you to continue building "at your own risk," because in case of doubt the district office has to pay. They would be "stupid" to advise someone to build and then pay for it themselves. Or do you have that in writing?

You should clarify this point again with your legal advisor, if that has not already been done.

Furthermore, I would rack my brain about how to make the plaintiff an offer that he cannot refuse.