A parasite lives off a host. It feeds on what the host owns, with a negative net contribution, cannot be shed, and hurts the host when the host resists. This page tests that definition against two documents and a record of conduct. The documents are the management agreement and the service conditions that Next sent me on January 28, 2026, whose signatures were demanded under coercion and which I refused. The conduct is Next's side of every exchange we have had. The measure throughout is the Law on Homeowners' Associations: what the owners of a building have by statute, and what these documents would take from them.

Two things first, so that no reader has to say them for me. The service fee is modest: US$1 per square meter a month, about US$101 for my two apartments. And the services listed are real: light, cleaning, water pumps, an administrator, cameras, elevators. Owners need those things and would pay for them under any management. The parasitism is not in the price of the services. It is in everything the documents attach to it.

The management agreement

The management agreement hands my apartments to Next to rent out, for five years, renewing. Here is what Next takes.

Forty percent, of a number Next sets. Under Clause 4.3, Next keeps 40% of the rental income after VAT and "contractual deductions". The owner's 60% then pays for everything else: income tax (4.3); electricity, water, internet and cleaning, "even during the period of the renting out" (4.4); the bank commission if his account is abroad (4.6); the repairs after each guest (6.2); a general repair after five to seven years, if necessary (6.3); and the common-area fees, deducted at source (4.8). Next's 40% carries no costs named in the contract. The price and the rental periods are "determined by the managing company unilaterally" (4.1, 4.2), and the agreement "does not include any provisions concerning giving monthly guaranteed incomes to the owner" (5.6). Rent the apartment cheaply enough and the owner's 60%, after the guest's utilities and cleaning, is less than zero. There is no floor for the owner and no downside for Next.

The guest's extras. Once a guest is in my apartment, "any additional service received in the complex by the guest" is income "that belongs only to the managing company" (5.7). Put that beside 4.4: the cost of cleaning after the guest comes out of my 60%; a cleaning fee charged to the guest, if Next charges one as such listings usually do, is Next's. I pay the cost. Next keeps the fee.

Next chooses the guests; I pay for the damage. Clause 6.2 says that "the managing company is responsible for all the damages incurred to the apartment as the result of renting out it to the third bodies", and in the same sentence that "the responsibility to remunerate lies to the owner, based on the invoice issued by the 'hotel manager'", deducted from the owner's income. Next selects the guest, Next decides what to repair, Next chooses who repairs it and at what price, Next writes the invoice, and Next deducts it. The owner's agreement in the clause attaches to the works being done, not to their cost. The one clause of the contract where an independent estimate would matter most is the one clause without it (6.3, for the general repair, at least says the parties "shall agree on fair cost estimate"). Clause 6.1 completes the picture: Next "is entitled to insure the apartment", at its own expense. Entitled, not obliged; against no named risk; for no named beneficiary. It is not an owner's protection. It is an option Next holds, on a policy Next chooses, paying whom Next chooses.

A guest in my own home. Next has "the right of use during the whole contractual period" and is "exclusively entitled" to let the apartment (5.1). If I want to stay in it, I give written notice one week ahead in low season and one month ahead in high season (3.2). If it is already booked, Next "in case of possibility" puts me in "the similar type of free apartment" and deducts from my income what my own apartment earns meanwhile (3.3). I cannot suspend the arrangement while a booking stands (3.4, 3.5).

No way out, for me or for whoever buys from me. The agreement runs five years and renews for five more unless terminated (8.2, 8.3); after a renewal, Next may change the split "according to the conditions existing at the market" (8.3). Early termination is "based on the mutual agreement of the parties, or by the initiative of the managing company" on 30 days' notice (8.4). Next can drop me at will. I can never leave. Next may hand the whole contract to "any third party- other managing company", consent "deemed as issued" by my signature (5.9). And when I sell, I must "introduce all the rights and obligations envisaged by this agreement to the vendee" (5.8). A buyer who reads the papers is buying five self-renewing years that he cannot end. That is a discount on every unit in the building, in favor of no one but Next.

What the owner gets. Sixty percent of a number Next sets, less the costs above; a place on Booking and Airbnb (4.7); inclusion in Next's advertising, "included in the price" (5.5); monthly settlement (4.5); a web portal (5.10). That is the complete list.

The service conditions

The service conditions are the contract for the common property: the lobby, the yard, the elevators, the pumps, the cameras. That property belongs to the owners in common, by statute. Here is what Next takes.

Our property, Next's income. Without "a prior or post consents of the apartment owner", Next may rent out "the separate parts of the common area" to third parties "for certain fee" (3.2(c)), let third parties place their things there "for the purposes of economic activity" (3.2(d)), advertise on it (3.2(b)), sell services with it (3.2(e), 3.2(f)), and use it "for all other economic activities" (3.2(g)), all of this "for gaining additional incomes" (2.6). Not one sentence credits any of that income to the owners whose property it is. Next monetizes the host's property for its own account, while charging the host for maintaining it. The Law requires a unanimous decision of the owners before the use of several parts of the common property is handed to anyone (Article 6(5)). This clause replaces the decision with a signature.

Rules, sanctions and fees at will. Next approves the building's rules and the sanctions for breaking them "unilaterally" (1.6), and may move the fee up or down by half (2.7). The owner may not change the design of his own entrance door (3.3).

Three thousand dollars against ten lari. A late payment costs the owner 0.1% a day, 36.5% a year (5.1(a)). Notifying Next of a unilateral termination costs US$3,000, "despite the fact that the managing company agrees or not" (5.1(c)), although 6.3 denies the owner any unilateral termination to begin with: the fine is for asking. Next's own penalty, for "breaching the intended use of the property", is GEL 10 a day (5.3).

The elevator, the desk, the guard, the utilities. Until "the due debts/penalties" are paid, the owner loses "using of elevators", "service of the administrator and security service", and "will be obliged to endure such possible discomfort" (5.2). For a violation Next finds "rough", Next may "turn off the infrastructural and service systems linked to the apartment" (5.8). Next has been applying 5.2 to me since July 1, 2026, without my signature.

Forever, for the owner; thirty days, for Next. The conditions are "in force for indefinite time" (6.1). The owner has no "right to terminate the conditions unilaterally" (6.3); Next may terminate on 30 days' notice (6.4). On a sale, everything passes "to every new vendee, without changes" (9.4), and a fresh copy is signed with him (9.5).

Three details. The contract is with Next White, the seller; the money goes to the account of Next Hospitality (2.3). The fee may be paid out of the owner's management income "only if the 'Seller' is a party to both mentioned agreements" (2.4): the two documents were drafted as a pair, which is why they arrived as a pair. And the service list includes "exploitation of elevators with card or other system" (3.1(g)), in a document falsely dated August 1, 2025, two months before Next announced the chips to the owners. The instrument of enforcement was a "service" from the start.

What the owner gets. The seven services of Clause 3.1 for US$1 per square meter; a monthly statement of what Next says he owes (2.5); a written justification of fee changes (2.7); and the courts (7.2). No account of the expenses. No vote on the rules. No share of the income from his own property. No exit.

Services not rendered

Clause 3.1 obliges Next to provide the seven services "with its own cots". The owners of Next White report what they receive: cockroaches; dirt in the entrance for a week; a car damaged in the parking lot while the security service did nothing; a power cut announced ten minutes after it began; parcels refused at reception; and a manager who says no cleaning schedule exists in any Next building.

Against that, the contract gives the owner: a penalty of GEL 10 a day, in a clause (5.3) whose wording does not plainly cover a service not rendered at all; no right to withhold the fee; no right to terminate (6.3); and 9.2, under which a right granted to one party "does not give rise to any obligation of the other party" unless the contract says so expressly. The owner whose car was damaged pays for the security service that watched it happen, keeps paying, and cannot leave. His own late payment would cost him 0.1% a day and his elevator. Ten lari a day on one side; the elevator on the other.

The difference

Every clause above has a counterpart in the Law on Homeowners' Associations. That difference is the parasitism: not the services, which the owners would provide for themselves, but what Next has placed between the owners and their own building.

The right-hand column is what Next needed my signature for. The left-hand column is what the owners of this building have without signing anything.

The same behavior, off paper

Nothing in the documents is a drafting accident. It is how Next deals. On every occasion when I gave, Next kept; on every occasion when I asked, Next did not answer my questions.

• On January 27, 2026, Next asked for my passport number, email and telephone; I sent them the same evening. They came back to me the next day inside two falsified contracts.
• On January 28 I proposed a plain agreement listing the services at US$100 a month, plus US$600 of the US$608 Next claimed, with no unilateral powers and no transfer of rights over my apartments. No answer.
• On February 4 I offered to compensate Next, retroactively if need be, and asked it to state what it considered owing. Receipt was acknowledged on February 6, with a written undertaking to respond. No response, to this day.
• In March I paid GEL 2,170, with no contract and no account of the common expenses ever provided. Accepted and kept.
• On July 1 I offered to receive the chips against a plain receipt. Refused. I asked for the waiver to be removed from a form Next itself says waives nothing. Declined.
• On July 4 I requested five documents on a thirty-day deadline. Three of the five were refused or ignored.
• On August 17 the director invited the particulars of the health-related incident at the reception; I supplied them the next day, and asked whether a representative bearing my written authority would be issued chips. Neither has been answered.

Next asserts rights against me, to a sum, to a signature, to the use of my property, while performing none of the duties the Law places on whoever manages a building: no account of the expenses, no minutes, no record of any decision, and no answer to a written request for the legal provision it invoked. It takes what it can and answers nothing. That is the documents, in conduct.

There is one more thing every fee does for Next. The complex holds the status of a tourist enterprise, and the fees Next bills the owners count toward the turnover it must show the Revenue Service to keep its VAT exemption. Every owner who pays helps Next keep its tax break; every owner who does not is a step away from it. That is a motive, not a regulation.

What I want

I would like Next to leave the building, and let the owners manage it, account to one another, set their own fees, and hire whom they choose, which is what the Law already provides for. Everything on this page is the distance between that and what Next put in front of me to sign.