Lease retraction
Translation generated by AI. Access the original version
Exercise after the sale of leased housing and garage without notice
The Supreme Court (SC) has confirmed the right of a tenant to exercise the so-called "lease retraction" after the housing and garage she had rented were sold without anyone properly notifying her of that sale.
In this case, the tenant was not informed of the transfer of the properties, so, upon finding out, she decided to claim her right to buy them herself as allowed by the Urban Leases Act (ULA). Both the court and the Provincial Court ruled in her favor and allowed her to stay with the housing and garage paying the same price as the buying company paid.
The buying company appealed, arguing mainly three things: that the tenant had to provide the money (" deposit the price ") before even filing the lawsuit, that since several properties were sold together at the same time, she could not exercise the right of first refusal, and that she was no longer a tenant at the time of the sale. However, the Supreme Court did not accept any of these arguments.
According to the Supreme Court, first, it is not necessary to deposit the price before claiming the right of first refusal; it can be done after the judgment recognizing it. Second, only if the entire building is sold at once would the tenant lose their right, which was not the case here. And, third, it was verified that the plaintiff was indeed a tenant at the time of the sale.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court protects the tenant's right to exercise the right of first refusal in similar situations, as long as it is clear that the lease existed at the time of the sale and the legal exceptions do not apply.
If you are in a similar situation or have any dispute related to a residential lease, our professionals can analyze your case and take the most appropriate actions to defend your interests-
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.