Installation of common element
Translation generated by AI. Access the original version
Constitution of servitude necessary for the installation of a communal elevator
The Provincial Court (AP) of Cantabria has resolved the conflict that arose between a community of property owners and the owners of a premises in a building in Santander, following theinstallation of an elevator whose construction required occupying part of the private space of a commercial premises.
In this case, the communitydecided in a meeting to install an elevator toimprove accessibility throughout the building, which required usingpart of the premises of the dissenting owners permanently, and another part temporarily, while the works lasted. In addition, these owners would beobligated to pay their proportional share of the cost of the new elevator and would receive financial compensation for the occupation.
For the AP, this action was carried out in thegeneral interest of the community, the agreements were correctly made in the meeting, furthermore, the owner of the premises wasinformed and was present, although she voted against, andnever challenged officially decided. Therefore, those agreements arevalid and must be complied with, without the possibility of reopening the discussion on the necessity or convenience of the project at this stage.
The court also endorses theamount of compensation set by the first court, emphasizing that anyone who believes they are harmed by the agreements must prove it and quantify it.
Our professionals can provide you with appropriate advice on the operation of your community and the adoption of agreements in accordance with regulatory requirements, as well as take the necessary actions to defend your rights-
Elevator maintenance
Nullity of duration clauses and excessive notice in successive contracts This case deals with a typical contract for “preventive maintenance” of elevators, which are not fulfilled in a single day, but are provided month by month (what is called in law a successive contract). A maintenance company sued a community of owners because it decided to terminate the contract before the agreed term expired. The company claimed two things, on one hand, that unpaid invoices were paid; and, on the other, compensation for “breaking” the contract early. The conflict revolved around two clauses of the contract where one set a duration of 3 years and the other required a notice of 180 days (six months) in advance if one wanted to terminate the contract. The community argued that these conditions were abusive in the case of a consumer (in this case, the community itself). In the first instance, the court ruled in favor of the company, ordering the community to pay both the compensation for early termination and the outstanding invoices (in addition to interest and costs). However, on appeal, the Provincial Court of Málaga changed the criterion, declaring the 3-year duration clause and the 180-day notice clause null and abusive. What is the practical consequence? If those clauses are invalid, the company cannot rely on them to demand a penalty or compensation for having terminated the contract early. Nevertheless, the community must pay what it actually owed, the outstanding invoices for services already rendered. The Supreme Court confirmed this outcome, the duration and notice clauses are considered null, no compensation is due for ending the contract early, and only unpaid invoices are owed.
-
Urban leases
Does a reversible work by the tenant give the owner the right to terminate the contract?
-
Urban Leases
This website uses both its own and third-party cookies to analyze our services and navigation on our website in order to improve its contents (analytical purposes: measure visits and sources of web traffic). The legal basis is the consent of the user, except in the case of basic cookies, which are essential to navigate this website.