The court noticed that the so-called return clause was not specifically described in the agreement, although the municipality did not really have a response to this. “Is it just worded clumsily or is it not as intended?” the judge asked with a sense of irony.
Part of the agreement was the agreement that if the foundation stopped, the building would return to the municipality. Op Eigen Houtje did not succeed in writing black figures during its four-year existence. The high energy costs became too much of a burden for the foundation, after which all board members resigned in 2018.
The court got the impression that the foundation technically ceased to exist in that year. Why didn’t the municipality ask for the building back then? According to the municipality, a new board was established under the name Pand 88. They wanted to continue in the same spirit as their predecessors. “We therefore saw it more as a restart,” said a representative of the municipality. But the new board did not last long either.
A year later they sounded the alarm to the municipality with a request for a subsidy of €300,000. “We were already talking about returning the building,” said the municipality’s spokesperson. That turned out differently in practice, because the foundation decided to sell the building to real estate agent Henrie Frieling from Emmen.
Frieling was initially asked to appraise the property. “They wanted to make the building more sustainable, for which they were looking for financing,” the real estate agent explains. Frieling could not remember exactly what amount he valued the building for during the hearing. “But it is on paper.” The judges asked him to do so. still to supply that data.
A few months after the valuation, the foundation contacted Frieling again. “They were keen to sell the property at short notice.” Frieling told them to wait until more sales opportunities arose, but there was apparently a rush, after which Frieling decided to buy the property himself for 80,000 euros.
That amount is considerably lower than the value of 140,000 euros stated by the municipality. The judge asked whether the appraisal was decisive in determining the sales price, but according to Frieling it is normal that the appraisal value and market price can deviate from each other.
The real estate agent has contacted the municipality about the return clause, he says. “Several times, but I never got an answer.” The chairman of the foundation told him that the sale could go ahead as usual, the broker said. The notary who supervised the sale did not raise a red flag either, he says. Frieling continued the community center under the new name De Wilker and rents out spaces.
As soon as the municipality learns that the property has been sold to Frieling, a lawsuit will be filed. The judge rules in favor of the municipality and orders Frieling to return the property. The broker disagrees and files an appeal.
Legally, the municipality is now the owner of the building, but Frieling still is in an economic sense. The users pay him the rent and he also pays the owner costs. Frieling: “The municipality also uses space with me: polling stations for the elections.”
The municipality of Emmen maintains that both Frieling and the foundation have tried to disadvantage the municipality by selling the school building outside the municipality. The real estate agent knew that the building did not belong to him and that the sale was unacceptable.
Mainly because of the enormous profit and the fact that the municipality would then be left empty-handed, according to the municipality. “Frieling washes his hands of innocence and blindly relies on the foundation board’s statement that the building should simply have been sold. He hides behind the so-called ambiguity of the clause.”
According to the municipality, Frieling knew perfectly well about the return delivery and that he would consciously disadvantage the municipality with the transaction. He should therefore have known better, the municipality believes. According to Frieling’s lawyer, Mr Doornbos, the municipality responded wishful thinking. “I hear assumptions, not facts.”
The court will decide on the case no later than March 5.