The owners' meeting approved an unfair levy: challenge it

The case, in five lines

What is brought

Claim challenging the owners' meeting resolution under article 18 of the Horizontal Property Act, with an interim application to suspend its execution.

Before which court

The Civil section of the Tribunal de Instancia (the first-instance court) where the building stands, under the ordinary form of civil proceedings unless the action is purely for money.

Deadline

Three months from the day the meeting passed the resolution. One year where the resolution breaches the law or the by-laws. For an absent owner the period runs from notification of the resolution.

Who can bring it

Owners who recorded their dissenting vote at the meeting, those absent for any reason, and those wrongly deprived of their right to vote.

Financial risk

The challenge does not by itself suspend execution of the resolution: the works go ahead and the levy is still demanded unless an interim measure is granted. Losing adds an order for costs on top of paying the levy.

Not every resolution can be challenged: the Act gives three grounds

Article 18.1 of the Horizontal Property Act allows resolutions of the meeting to be challenged in court on three grounds. First, where they breach the law or the community's by-laws. Second, where they are seriously harmful to the interests of the community itself for the benefit of one or more owners. Third, where they cause serious harm to an owner who is under no legal duty to bear it, or were passed in abuse of right.

Finding a levy expensive is not enough. What is argued is whether the resolution respected the majority the law requires, whether the works are of the kind that bind a dissenting owner, and whether the cost is shared according to the participation quota or benefits somebody at everyone else's expense. That is the ground on which the case is won, not the wisdom of the decision.

Three months to sue, unless the resolution breaches the law

Article 18.3 provides that the action lapses three months after the resolution is passed by the owners' meeting, unless it concerns acts contrary to the law or the by-laws, in which case the action lapses after one year. For absent owners that period runs from notification of the resolution under the procedure of article 9.

The distinction is uncomfortable for anyone in doubt. The longer period depends on the ground being precisely a breach of the law or of the by-laws, so relying on the year and getting the classification wrong leaves the case out of time without the merits ever being heard. Where the resolution was passed without the majority the law requires there is a breach of law, and that is the argument that opens the one-year period.

The lapse period is not interrupted by formal letters or by complaints to the manager. It stops only when the claim is filed. That is why, as soon as the minutes arrive, the first thing to do is to put the deadline in the calendar and work backwards from it, rather than waiting to see whether the community reconsiders the resolution at the next meeting.

Without being up to date with payments the merits are never reached

Article 18.2 requires that, in order to challenge the meeting's resolutions, the owner be up to date in paying all debts fallen due to the community, or first deposit them with the court. It is a requirement of the action itself: if it is not met, the claim is rejected without any examination of whether the resolution was abusive.

The same paragraph adds one precise exception: this rule does not apply to challenges brought against resolutions on the setting or the alteration of the participation quotas referred to in article 9. Outside that single case, an owner who disputes a levy must first pay it or deposit it with the court before disputing it, however contradictory that sequence may feel to the person paying.

Standing belongs, under that paragraph, to owners who recorded their dissenting vote at the meeting, those absent for any reason, and those wrongly deprived of their right to vote. Recording a dissenting vote means that the minutes state that you voted against, not that you said so in the room. If the minutes do not reflect it, their correction must be requested at once.

Improvement works do not bind a dissenting owner like maintenance works

Article 17.4 provides that no owner may demand new installations, services or improvements that are not required for the proper upkeep, habitability, safety and accessibility of the building. It adds that where improvements that are not required are approved by three fifths of owners and quotas, and the installation share exceeds three ordinary monthly instalments of common expenses, the dissenting owner is not bound and their quota is not altered.

The contrast with other resolutions is clear. Paragraph 2 requires the community to pay for validly agreed accessibility works even where their annual cost exceeds twelve ordinary monthly instalments, and paragraph 9 states that validly passed resolutions bind all owners. Hence the first technical question is whether the levy funds upkeep, accessibility or improvement, because whether it binds you depends on the answer.

Challenging does not halt the levy: suspension must be applied for

Article 18.4 is blunt: challenging the resolutions of the meeting does not suspend their execution, unless the court so orders as an interim measure, on the claimant's application and after hearing the owners' community. Filing the claim and then sitting still means that the works are contracted, carried out and paid for while the case slowly moves on towards judgment.

Hence the interim measure is applied for in the claim itself and not afterwards, with reasoning on what would happen if the works are carried out and the resolution is then annulled: expenditure already incurred, hard to undo and hard to reallocate. That reasoning, with the budget and the works schedule in view, is what supports the application to suspend.

How we run the case, step by step

1. 1

   Read the notice and the minutes against the constitutive deed

   We check the agenda, whether the item was announced, the list of owners in arrears required by article 16.2, the voting result and whether your vote against was recorded. Without correct minutes there is no case.

2. 2

   Check the majority that resolution required

   We compare what was passed with the rules of article 17: unanimity where it alters the constitutive deed or the by-laws, three fifths in the cases the law reserves for that majority, and a simple majority for the rest. An insufficient majority is a breach of law.

3. 3

   Be up to date or deposit what is owed

   We settle the debts fallen due to the community, or prepare the deposit with the court, because article 18.2 requires it in order to challenge. The only exception concerns resolutions setting or altering the participation quotas of article 9.

4. 4

   Prior attempt at a settlement

   We document the negotiating activity required as a condition of admissibility by article 5 of Organic Act 1/2025, proposing in writing to the community that the resolution be revoked or amended, with the same subject matter the claim will later have.

5. 5

   Claim with an interim application to suspend

   We file the claim against the owners' community within the lapse period and apply in the same document for interim suspension of the resolution's execution, because article 18.4 does not grant it automatically.

6. 6

   Judgment and its consequences in the community

   Once the resolution is annulled, we claim back what was paid under it and we watch that the community does not pass the same resolution again at the next meeting under a different name and with the same insufficient majority.

The law that applies

• Art. 18 LPH. Lists the three grounds of challenge, gives standing to the owner who recorded a dissenting vote, the absent owner and the one wrongly denied a vote, requires being up to date or depositing, sets the lapse period at three months or one year, and denies automatic suspensory effect. BOE-A-1960-10906
• Art. 17 LPH. Sets the majority required for each type of resolution, releases the dissenting owner from non-essential improvements exceeding three ordinary monthly instalments, counts the absent owner's silence after thirty calendar days as a vote in favour, and states that valid resolutions bind everyone. BOE-A-1960-10906
• Art. 16 LPH. Governs the notice of the meeting, which must state the items to be dealt with, the place, day and hour, contain the list of owners not up to date with payments and warn of the loss of voting rights in the cases of article 15.2. BOE-A-1960-10906
• Art. 249.1.8.º LEC. Sends to the ordinary form of civil proceedings, whatever the amount, the actions the Horizontal Property Act grants to owners' meetings and to owners, unless they concern purely money claims. BOE-A-2000-323
• Art. 5 LO 1/2025. Requires, as a condition of admissibility in civil matters, prior resort to an appropriate dispute resolution method with the same subject matter, and accepts negotiation carried out by the parties or their lawyers. BOE-A-2025-76

Each article checked against the consolidated text published in the BOE (the Spanish official gazette).

Frequently asked questions