After the death of her parents in Cologne, the daughter should now get the deposit back from the previous landlady – shares worth more than one hundred thousand euros.

The district court of Cologne ruled in a judgment announced on Tuesday that the landlady could not fobbe them off with the 800 marks once deposited as rent security.

Contrary agreements in the rental agreement are void.

(Az: 203 C 199/21)

In the case at hand, the plaintiff's parents, who have died in the meantime, had rented an apartment in 1960 from a housing company in Cologne on the right bank of the Rhine.

They paid a so-called rent guarantee of 800 marks.

According to the lease, the landlord was allowed to invest the money in shares, which he did.

After termination, the landlord was supposed to issue the shares, but was also entitled to "pay out the nominal amount of 800 DM" instead.

Housing association recalls the choice clause

In 2005, the parents moved to another apartment owned by the housing association.

The rent security was "transferred" to a deposit of now 409 euros. The trustee who managed the shares now also paid out the dividends - from 2005 to 2017 almost 6000 euros.

When the lease ended in 2018, the housing association remembered the choice clause in the lease and paid back 409 euros.

In contrast, the daughter, as heir, demands that the shares be surrendered.

These now have a value of more than one hundred thousand euros.

The District Court of Cologne has now upheld the daughter's claim.

According to the law, the tenant is entitled to the rent security “regardless of the chosen form of investment”.

Agreements deviating from this are ineffective.

Up until 2001, however, the rental deposit always had to be put into a savings account.

Only since then has it been legally permissible for tenants and landlords to “agree on a different form of investment”.

Here, investing the rent security in shares was not even permitted in 1960.

In 2005, however, the deposit was transferred to the new contract and thus also to the new law.

The district court emphasized that the landlord's freedom of choice to return the deposit in money or in the form of shares is not permissible.

Otherwise, the landlords could cherry-pick and pass on any price losses to the tenants by releasing the shares.