The Provincial Court of Huesca has dismissed the lawsuit filed by the owner of a premises against the community of neighbors, in which he requested to review the distribution of expenses and redo the accounts so that all neighbors, including those who do not they use the pool, will contribute to its maintenance. The court concludes that no irregularity has been proven and that the applied system of only those who enjoy it paying is valid.
According to the ruling of January 9, 2026, the resident of the premises complained about the way in which the community expenses such as concierge, common services or facilities such as the swimming pool and sports area. The community applied an agreement approved in 1992 that established a differentiated distribution, excluding some owners (such as those with garages and storage rooms) from paying for certain services as they did not benefit from them.
The owner of the premises considered that this method of distribution did not respect the statutes and requested that it be changed, but the Court of First Instance of Jaca rejected the claim, considering that the distribution of expenses, including the exemption from payment of the pool to some owners, was valid and no irregularity had been demonstrated.
The Court endorses the distribution of expenses and refuses to force everyone to pay for the pool
The Provincial Court of Huesca recalled first of all that it is up to the plaintiff to prove that the cost sharing system is illegal or contrary to the statutes, as established in article 217 of the Civil Procedure Law on the burden of proof. In this sense, the company that owns the premises did not prove any relevant accounting errors or that the model applied by the community violated the Horizontal Property Law.
The ruling also refers to articles 9 and 14 of said law, which regulate the contribution to common expenses and the adoption of agreements by the owners’ meeting. Based on this regulation and the doctrine of the Supreme Court, the Court recalled that communities can establish differentiated distribution systems when they are justified by the use or exploitation of the services.
Based on this, the Court considered valid the distribution of the expenses of the swimming pool and sports areas, which was made in accordance with an agreement adopted by the community in 1992 that excluded certain owners from payment, such as those of garages and storage rooms, understanding that they do not benefit from these facilities. He stressed that it did not contradict the statutes, even though it was not registered in the Property Registry, and responded to a reasonable criterion based on the use of the service.
For this reason, it rejected the claim of the owner of the premises to force all the neighbors to pay for the pool, making it clear that there was no general obligation to assume that expense when there is no direct benefit.
However, the sentence was not final and could be appealed to the Supreme Court.