Time-sharing exploitation
Translation generated by AI. Access the original version
Prescription period applicable to community fees
The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled in favor of an owner to whom a community was claiming unpaid community fees in a property under "time-sharing exploitation" (the typical assigned weeks). The community had initiated a monitorio procedure on September 8, 2017 claiming €6, 497. 30 for ordinary and extraordinary fees (with surcharges) accumulated between 2007 and 2014. After the defendant's opposition, the matter proceeded to an ordinary trial. In
first instance and on appeal , the courts ruled in favor of the community, understanding that the deadline to claim was the former 15-year period of the Civil Code. But the SC corrects that criterion by stating that, for this type of periodic fees , the applicable period is the 5-year period of art. 1966. 3 CC, because they are "payments that must be made yearly or in shorter periods ". And it adds something important, it doesn't matter if it's a "normal" community or a time-sharing one, because the ". And adds something important, no matter if we are facing a "normal" community or a timeshare one, because the obligation to contribute to expenses works the same and, in addition, the contract itself referred to the Horizontal Property Law for these obligations.
With these criteria, the SC concludes that when the payment order was filed in September 2017, the fees from 2007 to 2012 had already expired (the deadline had expired on January 31, 2017, because they were paid before January 31 of each year). That is why, out of the €6, 497. 30 claimed, only €1, 696 can be collected, corresponding to 2013 and 2014, plus legal interest from September 8, 2017.
If you find yourself in a similar situation, our professionals can analyze your case and take the most appropriate actions in defense of 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.