The Provincial Court of Navarra has upheld the appeal of a father who requested to limit the use of the family home by the mother, since the children had reached the age of majority. Thus, the woman will only be able to stay in the home for a period of 18 more months.
According to the ruling of September 29, 2025, the woman requested to continue living in the house even though the couple’s second child had already reached the age of majority, although she still resided in the house and was not financially independent. The attribution of the home to the mother had been conditioned on her cohabitation with the minor children or the liquidation of the partnership. marital. When one of these events occurred, the father appealed, requesting the end of the right of use.
You may be interested
A neighbor manages to annul the construction permit for four chicken coops next to her home: they were going to house more than 17,000 chickens
A landlady denounces the tenant for carrying out works without permission in the rented house: the court rejects it because they did not alter the structure of the house
The Court of First Instance No. 10 of Pamplona ruled in favor of the mother, allowing her to retain the use of the home as long as the community property was not liquidated, without imposing a time limit. The decision was based on the fact that the children still lived with her and that she had a significantly lower income than the father, which justified additional protection.
Although he has to leave the home because the children are of legal age, the court gives him an extra period of 18 months
The Provincial Court of Navarra partially upheld the father’s appeal, modifying the regime for the use of the family home. Although it recognized that, in accordance with article 96.1 of the Civil Code, the use of the home is normally attributed based on the custody of minor children, it clarifies that once the children have reached the age of majority, this attribution is no longer automatically maintained.
The court noted that “the indefinite attribution of the use of the marital home cannot be maintained when the cause that motivated it disappears,” recalling that the divorce agreement itself provided for the use of the domicile “until the minor reaches the age of majority or the community property is liquidated.” Therefore, once the first condition had occurred, he understood that the situation needed to be reviewed.
However, and applying article 96.3 of the Civil Code, it recognized that the mother still retained an interest worthy of protection. Specifically, it was highlighted that “the parent has a much lower income than the father and continues to live with both children, who are not economically autonomous,” so it was justified to grant her temporary use of the home.
Therefore, it established that the right of use would be maintained for a maximum period of 18 months, counted from the date of the ruling. This transitional period was granted to facilitate the mother’s search for a new housing solution without generating an abrupt lack of protection. However, the sentence was not final and there was the possibility of filing an appeal against it before the Supreme Court.