Pirkanmaa District Court denies €980 rent claim over separated spouses’ WhatsApp agreement

Pirkanmaa District Court has denied Elina Rautio’s claim for €980 from her separated husband toward two months’ rent on their Tampere home. It found that she had not proved an agreement requiring Oskari Rautio to pay €490 for April and €490 for May.

The dispute turned on whether a short WhatsApp exchange continued an equal rent-sharing arrangement until the lease ended. The court recognized an agreed €120 electricity payment as a credit toward April, but awarded no money because the underlying rent obligation had not been established.

The authentic March exchange supported Elina’s interpretation, the court said. Her message referred to the lease running through May and asked about continuing to split the rent. Oskari replied that he would do his part as before. But the messages specified neither a sum nor a payment schedule, and the evidence did not establish the earlier arrangement.

The court regarded equal sharing as a reasonable reading of the word “splitting”, but not a proven one in this context. Elina had to establish the particular obligation and amount she sought, rather than merely show that rent sharing had been discussed.

Bank records proved that Elina paid the landlord €980 in each month. They did not prove a promise by Oskari to reimburse half. Her account, relayed through counsel rather than admitted witness testimony, did not resolve the uncertainty.

The electricity evidence was more definite: an archived exchange recorded agreement to apply the €120 bill toward April, and a bank record confirmed payment. Even the reference to an April half did not, in the court’s assessment, establish the amount owed. Nor did Elina’s statement that May still needed settling record an agreement to pay a particular sum.

Elina argued that continuing to split rent meant maintaining an existing half-and-half arrangement through May. Her side accepted that the electricity payment should be deducted from April’s claimed share, while maintaining that the balance and May contribution remained payable.

Oskari argued that his reply did not specify an amount, timing or separate commitment for each month. He accepted the April electricity credit but maintained that Elina’s payments to the landlord did not establish what he had agreed to reimburse.

Oskari moved out of the Tampere rental home in March. With the joint lease running through May, Elina contacted him about continuing to share rent while she arranged her move. She subsequently paid both months in full.

The judgment did not endorse Oskari’s narrower interpretation as fact or find that he had made no commitment. Its conclusion was limited to proof: the competing readings and missing detail left the specific rent amounts unestablished.