Horizontal Property
Translation generated by AI. Access the original version
Need for authorization to carry out works to join common elements of two different communities
A property owner had two commercial premises within a building under horizontal property regime. Without requesting authorization from the property owners' community, she demolished approximately two-thirds of the wall of the rear facade (a common element) in order to connect those premises with a warehouse belonging to another community of property owners. In other words, it was not just an interior renovation of the premises; by demolishing it, she achieved a de facto connection between properties that are in different communities , altering the original configuration of the building.
The community sued the property owner to declare the demolition illegal and to compel her to rebuild the wall and stop using that affected area exclusively. In the first instance, the lawsuit was dismissed applying an idea that appears in some cases, a certain “flexibility” when changes to facades are made to commercial premises and do not affect safety , the overall structure, or harm third parties.
However, the Provincial Court corrected that decision because since the work was done without the community's consent, it sentenced the owner to restore the wall at her own expense (clarifying later that the specific deadline would be set during the execution of the judgment). at their own expense (clarifying that the specific deadline would be set in the execution of the judgment).
The owner appealed to the Supreme Court (SC) arguing that unanimity was not required to create an opening in a rear facade without visibility and without affecting the structure. But the SC did not agree with her, as this was not a minor change or adaptation of the premises (such as doors, windows, or signs), but a significant demolition of the enclosure to connect premises with a property from another community, without permission no backup in statutes or in the constitutive deed. Therefore, confirm that community authorization was necessary and maintains the condemnation to restore the wall.
If you are affected by a situation similar to this, our office is at your disposal for any questions that may arise in this regard-
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.