The Court of First Instance number 62 in Madrid dismisses the lawsuit from a homeowners' association that sought to force some neighbours to remove their units from the façade.
A homeowners' association in Madrid has lost the legal battle against some neighbours who installed air conditioning units on the façade of their home. The Court of First Instance number 62 in Madrid has dismissed the lawsuit and ordered the community to pay the costs of the proceedings.
The origin of the conflict: prior authorisations
The dispute began when the homeowners' association demanded that the owners of a property relocate the air conditioning units inside the house, based on agreements made in the homeowners' meetings of 2007 and 2024. These agreements stipulated that new installations should be located on the terraces to maintain the aesthetic uniformity of the building.
However, the defendants demonstrated that the units had been installed before they purchased the property, in 1999, and that their placement had been expressly authorised by a community agreement in 1996. The owners' defence argued that subsequent agreements could only apply to new installations, not to already existing and authorised equipment.
The ruling states that the minutes from 2007 and 2024 did not expressly revoke the consent granted in 1996, so the permission remained valid for the already installed units. The judge concluded that the owners did not violate community regulations or the Horizontal Property Law.
Who pays for the relocation?
The neighbours stated that they did not oppose a potential change of location, but only if the community covered the cost. The court agreed with them: it exempts the owners from any obligation to bear the relocation costs and orders the community to cover the expenses of any potential relocation, in addition to imposing the payment of the costs of the proceedings.
As highlighted by the firm Parrado Asesores, the ruling supports the principle of legal certainty in cases where there are prior authorisations from the community. It questions whether subsequent agreements regarding aesthetic uniformity can be applied retroactively to previously consented installations.
Advice for neighbours and communities
For residents of Madrid with similar installations, the ruling makes it clear that if they have prior authorisation from the community, subsequent agreements cannot force them to remove them without incurring costs. For communities, it implies that they must be careful when approving agreements that affect existing installations and ensure they expressly revoke previous authorisations if they want to change the rules.
In any case, the ruling is not final and can be appealed. In the meantime, the neighbours can continue enjoying their air conditioning on the façade without fear of having to pay to move it. A victory for common sense and legal certainty, demonstrating that not everything is permissible in homeowners' associations, no matter how majority the agreements may be.
You may also like
