In Dnipro, a woman won 5,000 UAH for a bench near the entrance that was dismantled by the Homeowners Association (HOA)

Can a Homeowners Association (HOA) dismantle a bench installed by one of the co-owners near the entrance on their own? The Industrial District Court of Dnipro concluded that even if the bench was installed without proper approval, this alone does not give the association the right to dismantle it independently. If the HOA believes that the rights of co-owners have been violated, it must demand the removal of the violation in accordance with the law, including by going to court, rather than seizing private property on its own. At the same time, the court recognized that the HOA board acted within its powers when it previously temporarily moved another bench due to the threat of falling facing tiles from the building facade. This was the conclusion the court reached in the dispute between a co-owner of the building and the HOA.

What happened

The plaintiff is a co-owner of an apartment in a building where the HOA "Donetske Shose-121" was established.

In July 2024, the HOA board decided to temporarily move a bench from the third entrance. The reason was complaints from residents about falling fragments of ceramic tiles from the building facade, which, according to the board, posed a danger to people. The bench was moved to the exercise area opposite the same entrance.

In April 2025, one of the co-owners ordered a new bench at her own expense costing 21,100 UAH and installed it near the third entrance. A few days later, the HOA board decided to dismantle this bench, citing that it was installed without approval, contrary to a collective appeal from 21 residents of the entrance who asked not to install a bench under their windows. On May 1, 2025, the bench was dismantled and placed in temporary storage. After the lawsuit was filed, the HOA returned the bench to its owner.

The plaintiff went to court. She requested to invalidate the board's decision to move the original bench, to recognize the actions regarding the relocation and dismantling of the new bench as illegal, to oblige the HOA to return the bench to its previous place, and to recover 21,100 UAH in material damages and 10,000 UAH in moral damages.

Positions of the parties

The plaintiff argued that the use of property on the adjacent territory belongs to the competence of the general meeting of co-owners, not the HOA board. She also believed that the HOA unlawfully disposed of her property when dismantling the bench she installed. In her opinion, the association also had no right to unilaterally decide on the placement of landscaping elements.

In contrast, the HOA stated that the relocation of the first bench was dictated by the need to ensure residents' safety due to the emergency condition of the facade. Regarding the new bench, the defendant emphasized that it was installed without approval and without considering the interests of other co-owners, and after dismantling, the bench was only temporarily stored and returned to the owner as soon as she asserted her rights.

Court conclusions

The court denied the claims regarding the board's decision to relocate the original bench.

The court noted that the board acted within its powers of current management of the apartment building. The temporary relocation of the bench was aimed at ensuring residents' safety due to the threat of falling tiles from the facade and was not related to resolving the issue of using common property or establishing restrictions on its use. Therefore, this issue did not fall within the exclusive competence of the general meeting of the HOA.

The court also denied the request to oblige the HOA to return the bench to the third entrance. The plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence that installing the bench in this location would comply with landscaping legislation and would not violate the rights of other co-owners. The court also took into account the written appeal of the entrance residents who opposed its installation under the apartment windows.

At the same time, the court recognized the claims regarding the illegality of dismantling the new bench as justified.

The court noted that the case materials 202/4687/25 do not contain evidence that the plaintiff obtained the appropriate permit to install this small architectural form, nor evidence of consent from other co-owners. However, these circumstances alone did not grant the HOA the right to independently dismantle private property.

The court pointed out that the powers of the HOA board are related to managing the apartment building and the common property of co-owners. If the association believed that the bench installation violated the rights of co-owners or legal requirements, it had the right to demand the owner to eliminate such violations, including by going to court, rather than independently dismantling the bench and moving it to storage. For this reason, the court found the HOA's actions regarding the dismantling of the bench unlawful.

Why the court denied material damage recovery

The court noted that after the plaintiff filed the lawsuit, the HOA returned the bench to her. Since the property was neither lost nor damaged, and the plaintiff's representative did not support this part of the claim after the property was returned, the court found no grounds to recover 21,100 UAH in material damages.

Why moral damages were awarded

The court concluded that the illegal dismantling violated the plaintiff's property rights. Because of this, she had to take measures to recover her property, which disrupted her usual way of life and caused moral suffering.

At the same time, when determining the compensation amount, the court considered the plaintiff's behavior, noting that when exercising their rights, a person should refrain from actions that may violate the rights of others. Considering this, the court reduced the claimed compensation from 10,000 UAH to 5,000 UAH.

What the court decided

The Industrial District Court of Dnipro partially satisfied the claim. The court recognized the HOA's actions regarding the dismantling of the plaintiff's bench as unlawful, awarded her 5,000 UAH in moral damages and 1,782.11 UAH in court fees. At the same time, the court denied other claims, including canceling the board's decision on the temporary relocation of the bench, returning it to the previous location, and recovering material damages.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as our VIBER and WhatsApp, page on Facebook and on Instagram to stay updated on the most important events.