Horizontal Property

The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled in favor of an owner who was denouncing two neighbors for carrying out works in their home that were affecting common elements of the building , such as the facade and a dividing wall, and which also involved an extension of their dwelling . The key point is that these works did not have the unanimous authorization of the community of owners, as required by the Horizontal Property Law when modifying common elements and, above all, when altering the floor area and, thus, the participation coefficients. Initially, the court dismissed the lawsuit because, in its view, the works had been discussed in a meeting

of owners and their authorization had been approved by majority vote. The plaintiff did not formally challenge that agreement within the one-year deadline, so the court considered the works validated. However, the Provincial Court and now also the SC believe that this is not sufficient

However, the Provincial Court and now also the Supreme Court understand that not enough , the agreement only dealt with a modification of the facade, but the works carried out went beyond and involved an extension of the dwelling, which required unanimity. In addition, only a small part of the owners was represented at that meeting, and the plaintiff did not even vote in favor, but requested that "the Law be complied with."

The Supreme Court makes it clear that if an owner carries out works that affect common elements and increase the surface area of their house, without the permission of the entire community, any neighbor can request in court that they be forced to demolish them , even if there was an unchallenged board agreement. It is not valid for the work to have been approved by the majority if it actually required unanimity and the board only authorized something minor .

In the end, the Supreme Court confirms the judgment ordering the responsible owners to tear down the illegal construction and return the dwelling to its original state, with a deadline of 6 months to do so voluntarily before it is executed at their expense. And, in addition, these convicted individuals are ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.