Urban leases
Translation generated by AI. Access the original version
Condemnation of the lessee of the leased housing in auction
In this case, the protagonists are sometenants who lived in a house that wasauctioned because it had apending mortgage. When the new owner obtained the housing in the auction, the tenants used theright of pre-emption, a special right that some tenants have to stay with the housing instead of the buyer, as long as theymatch the conditions of the sale.
Although a judge recognized the right of these tenants to acquire the housing,it took them a while to be able to occupy it because the lessee (the auction winner) resisted giving them the house. The tenants then decided to requestcompensation for the damages suffered, since they had to continue paying rent elsewhere while they couldn't enter their home.
Initially, the courts stated that as long as the lesseedid not act in bad faith, was not obligated to pay compensation just for occupying the property while the judicial process was ongoing. However, upon appealing to the Supreme Court (TS), it clarifies the situation, stating that from the moment the judgment recognizing the right of first refusalis final(meaning it cannot be appealed), the previous owner must hand overthe property. If they refuse without justification, then there will indeed be a need to compensate the new owner(the preemptor) for any expenses incurred, such as renting another apartment. Finally, the TS
sentencesthe successful bidder to pay for the damages incurredfrom the moment the judgment became final until it was clear that they were refusing to hand over the property. In other words, the owner should not payfor the period during which they had legal possession, but shouldfrom the moment the court definitively stated that the house was to be handed over. since justice definitively said that the houseTenant era and still refused to deliver it.
If you find yourself in a similar situation or have any controversy related to a housing lease, our professionals can analyze your case and take the most appropriate actions in defense of 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.