The Provincial Court of Malaga has ruled in favor of a neighborhood community that prohibited an owner from parking in the common circulation areas of the garage because her home did not have a parking space. When the woman bought the home, she was already aware that it had no garage space, and the fact that the parking areas of the garage were common areas did not give him the right to use them to park his car.
According to the ruling of May 15, 2026, the home he purchased came from the segregation of another home, which did have a garage, and when the division was made, it was linked to the original property. This fact was even noted by the notary on the day it was signed the deed of sale. Despite this, the woman regularly parked in the parking areas of the garage, which ended up causing complaints from other neighbors because her car was bothering them to be able to use their own spaces.
Given this situation, the community approved in a owners meeting In 2019, with eight votes in favor, one against (her own) and six abstentions, prohibiting her from parking in those spaces. The woman, considering that her rights to the common areas were being violated, decided to sue the community. However, the Court of First Instance number 14 of Malaga dismissed his claim, a decision that was later confirmed by the Provincial Court.
The owner did not have the right to use the common areas as parking
The woman defended that she had the right to use the common areas and assured that there were three parking spaces in the driving areas that all the neighbors could use. However, according to the Court, he was unable to demonstrate that these places existed or that the community had authorized their use.
Furthermore, in 1999 the community had already approved regulations that allowed certain temporary parking in the circulation areas, but did not recognize them as parking spaces and limited their use to certain people, including owners with their own space.
Therefore, the Court considered that the division of a home could not generate new parking rights or harm the rest of the neighbors, especially when the woman had purchased a property without a parking space.
The community could prohibit him from parking without requiring the unanimity of the neighbors
Another of the owner’s arguments was that the agreement needed the favorable vote of all the neighbors because it affected the use of a common element.
However, the Court rejected this allegation because the prohibition did not modify the statutes or the constitutive title of the building, but instead applied the rules that were already in force. Therefore, in accordance with article 17.7 of the Horizontal Property Law, the simple majority required for this type of agreement was sufficient.
In fact, the magistrates pointed out that, even if the ban had not been approved in 2019, the woman would not have had the right to park there either because previous regulations already prevented it.
The residents of a building have been living among scaffolding for six years that prevent them from opening the windows and leave their homes without natural light.
María Cristina Clemente, notary: “All communities of owners are very attentive to the reform of the Horizontal Property Law that comes into force on October 23”
For all these reasons, the Provincial Court of Malaga dismissed the owner’s appeal and confirmed the decision that ruled in favor of the community, although the sentence (SAP MA 2149/2026) was not final and could be appealed.