Section 9 Owners’ duties
1) The duties of each owner include:
(a) to respect the general installations of the commonhold and any other common parts: whether for general or exclusively use by all or any of the co-owners; whether included in their flats or premises or not. The facilities should be used with due care and the causation of damage or deterioration should be avoided at all times.
(b) to maintain their own flat or premises and private installations thereof in a good condition so that no harm is caused to the commonhold or other owners. An owner shall indemnify the commonhold for any damages produced by their carelessness or by their dependants for whom he is responsible.
(c) To consent to any repairs in their flat or premises required to service the building. They shall also permit any essential easements required to maintenance work, actions or develop shared facilities carried out or agreed, pursuant to what is set forth in this Act, being the owner entitled to satisfaction from the commonhold for any damage and prejudicial consequences.
(d) to allow entry to their flat or premises for the purposes laid down in the three previous paragraphs. (e) to contribute, according to the commonhold allocation specified in the commonhold community statement or to what may have been specially established, to the overall expenses for the appropriate maintenance of the building, its services, burdens and any responsibilities that cannot be allocated individually.
The amount payable to the commonhold association stemmed from the duty to contribute towards the maintenance and general expenses of the commonhold corresponding to the fees assessed for the period to date of the current and previous 3 years shall be deemed preferential under the terms of section 1923 of the Civil Code, and they come, as regards settlement, before those stated in subsections 3, 4 and 5 of said section, subject to the guarantees in favour of salaries and wages established in the Workers’ Act .
Any person acquiring a house or premises with commonhold land, even when its title is entered in the Land Registry, shall be liable, with the acquired property as guarantee of any outstanding amounts payable owed by previous owners. This liability includes general expenses up to the limit of the fees assessed for the period to date of the year when the transfer of ownership took place and for the immediately precedent three years. The flat or premises shall be legally encumbered for the fulfilment of this obligation.
In the registered deed by which the ownership is transferred, the transferor shall include a statement declaring that he or she is up to date with the general expenses of the commonhold; or if he is not he must list the amount owed. The transferor must present this statement with a certificate concerning the state of his balance with the commonhold. This shall coincide with said statement. Execution of the deed shall not be authorised unless the transferee should expressly discharge such requirements.
The certificate shall be issued by the person acting as secretary within seven calendar days from the request, with the approval of the president. Both shall be accountable, in case of blame or negligence, for the accuracy of the data on the certificate and for any damages resulting from delay in issuing it.
(f) to contribute, according to their respective commonhold allocation, to the endowment of the reserve fund that shall exist in the commonhold for the maintenance and repair of the building.
The reserve fund, which shall belong to the commonhold to all effects, shall be endowed with an amount not lower than five percent of its last ordinary budget. This fund may also be used by the commonhold to take out an insurance policy covering damages to the building or, alternatively, to undertake a contract for permanent maintenance of the building and its general installations.
(g) to observe due care in the use of the property and in their relationship with the other owners and to account for any infringement or damages.
(h) to notify the person acting as secretary , by any means ensuring proper evidence of service for the domicile in Spain for the purpose of receiving summons or communications of any kind related to the commonhold. In absence of this notification the flat or premises shall be deemed to be the owner’s domicile by default, and any notices served on the occupant shall constitute full legal effect. Should service of notification or summons at the place indicated in the preceding paragraph be impossible, it shall be deemed to have taken place if the communication is affixed on the notice board of the commonhold, or at a visible place set aside for this purpose. The notice should, indicate the date and the reason for which this form of notification is used, should be signed by the person acting as secretary and endorsed by the president. A notice served in this way shall produce full legal effect following the term of three calendar days.
(i) to notify the person acting as secretary of the commonhold, by any means providing certification of delivery, the change of ownership of their flat or premises. Any owner failing to comply with this duty shall remain liable to the commonhold, jointly with the new owner, for debts incurred after the transfer; but shall be able to claim refund from the new owner.
The rules laid down in the preceding paragraph do not apply when any of the governing bodies specified in section 13 have been aware of the change of ownership of the house or premises, by any other means or as a results of conclusive actions of the new proprietor, or when the transfer is well-known.
(2) For the application of the rules set forth in the preceding paragraph, those expenses not attributable to one, or several flats or premises, shall be deemed general expense. The non-use of a service shall not exempt the owner from fulfilment of the corresponding obligations subject to the terms of section 17(2) of this Act .
9.1 Duty of respect
This means the proper use of the common parts in order to prevent any damage. ‘Proper use’ also implies to refrain from performing any activity which curtail the use of the common parts by other owners, as well as to use a common part contrary to its destiny or intended function.
9.2 Duty of maintenance
Each owner should be responsible for the repair and maintenance of the interior of his unit, and is required to carry out the adequate repairs in order to avoid damages to the common parts. SC 28-05-08, CA ruling Malaga 11-10-07, CA ruling Madrid 23-07-07 In case of damages caused because of lack of proper maintenance, the OC is entitled to bring an action against the proprietor
9.2.1 Unit-holders and occupier’s accountability
Tenants on short-term rentals sometimes cause problems because they do not have the same interest in the commonhold that the owners do. Without a specific statutory grant of authority, the OC may have trouble enforcing the Articles against a short-term tenant. Courts do not agree whether the proprietor vouch for tenants or other people living in his house. There are three approaches:
1. The proprietor is fully responsible for the harm caused by the occupiers of his property. SC 2. The CA ruling in Alicante 05-03-2008 added that it is not mandatory to sue tenants. In contrast with this approach the CA ruling in Guadalajara 09-10-2006 required suing both.
2. The occupier is the solely answerable to the commonhold for damages. SC 06-04-2001 CA ruling in Barcelona 04-11-1999 CA ruling in Murcia 15-07-
3. The third approach distinguishes between:
a. Damages caused by relatives under the legal age or legally incompetents, in that case the head of the family shall be accountable. SC 30-06-1995
b. Where damage is caused by a tenant, there is a distinction between ordinary repairs (where the tenant is held accountable) and extra-ordinary repairs which are the responsibility of the proprietor.
Recently, the Supreme Court has held the proprietor's liability for the construction of three chimneys in the roof by the tenant. SC 18-12-2009
The consequence in those cases will be the obligation to indemnify.
The action may become barred following one year under provisions laid down in section 1968 (2) of the Civil Code. CA ruling in Burgos 15-02-2001
Others courts hold that that term should be 15 years under as per 1964 of the Civil Code. 9.3 Easements and consent for repairs. CA ruling in Castellon 07-04-2004
There are two circumstances whereby the ownership rights of a unit are subject to limitation:
a. Repairs required for the commonhold.
b. Easements required for new ‘services or facilities of general interest’ under section 17.
9.3.1 Easements and repairs
An easement is a type of right which one person has over the land of another.
Section 530 of Civil Code defines easement as a ‘burden imposed on land in benefit of other land belonging to other owner.’
In commonhold land, an easement requires that commonholders must consent to certain burdens in order to develop facilities for the general interest of the commonhold.
Most of the cases of easement in a commonhold could be deemed as easement ‘by necessity’ ; for instance the installation of a lift in a block of flats. CA ruling in Leon 20-07-2007 and CA ruling in Barcelona 19-02-2007. An easement by necessity is distinguished from an easement by implication in that the former easement arises only when "strictly necessary," whereas the latter can arise when "reasonably necessary. Both are extinguished upon termination of the necessity
Section 543 and 565 of the Civil Code sets forth rules regarding to the creation of easements in general.
The owner of the dominant tenement may carry out at his own cost the necessary works for the upkeep and enjoyment of the easement without alteration’ He shall choose for it the way and time more suitable in order to cause the minimal inconvenience to the owner of the servient tenement.
The right of way shall be exercise on the part less detrimental for the sirvient tenemen
Although is not mandatory to register the easement with the Land Registry it is convenient to do so in order to achieve protection against claims of prospective buyers who could not admit the easement. CA ruling in Ávila 20-11-2002
Regarding repairs the owner must allow them in common elements located on the property and the community has to indemnify if there is any damage caused to the property. CA ruling Cuenca 15-01-08.
Where a business is affected and has to stop, some courts admit even compensation of loss of earnings, others are not that generous. CA ruling Burgos 06-02-2003, CA ruling Madrid 14-06-2007
9.3.2 Right to enter a unit
Where it is necessary and there is no cheaper possibility ( CA ruling in Baleares 05-09-2006 CA ruling in Madrid 08-03-2007 and 13-06-08) to keep the common areas in good repair, the OC has the right to authorize the entrance of a unit. It was stated by the Supreme Court on 13-12-2001 that ‘it is a legal obligation’.
For example, this would be the case where access is indispensable in order to repair the façade of the building.
In case of owner ‘s refusal the community can seek compensation. SC 28-10-05, CA ruling Valladolid 23-02-12.
An assessment, a technical report and a resolution passed by the OC is required. In case of urgent repairs the president could require the entrance even without the authorization of the Committee. CA ruling in Asturias 13-03-2006
Said report should be available for all the commonholders before the meeting in which the matter has to be discussed. Sometimes there is no need to make that report. CA ruling in Alicante 21-05-2008 in a case in which it were indispensable in order to find out the source of sickening smell or CA ruling in Asturias 13-02-2008 which dealt with compulsory disinfection
Restrictions imposed on the unit-holder must be justified.
Where no alternative option is available for the commonhold to carry out such repairs there is a right to enter , otherwise the right could not be exercised .CA ruling in Murcia 16-05-2006 CA ruling in Madrid 08-03-2007
For instance, where the front a building is going to be repaired, it may be indispensable to use a private balcony in order to store building materials. The quorum required for the adoption of such resolutions should be specific for the planned works, in accordance with section 17.
The majority required will depend of what kind of works are going to be done, regardless of whether or not it is necessary to enter a private area. Surprisingly, the CA ruling in Asturias 16-03-2006 held that the president does not need any resolution from the Owners’ Committee in order to require access to units.
The unit-holder affected cannot challenge the resolution adopted under section 18 (1) (c) if the OC has justified that there is no alternative for the commonhold.
22.214.171.124 Occupiers liabilities
As proprietors there is also an obligation imposed to the occupiers in the same terms specified to the unit-holders. CA ruling in Madrid 18-05-2006
It may be that the owner is entitled to compensation.
Section 9 (1) (c) provides that right but in order to exercise it the unit holder must prove the damages, for example, where he has to rent another house during the works. CA ruling in Castellon 11-07-2007 CA ruling in Madrid 14-06-2007 CA ruling in Cadiz 25-09-2006
Even where the commonholder consents to enter to his unit he is entitled to compensation.
If the owner denies the access, the OC shall adopt a resolution according to s. 17.
Where the owner is still reluctant to permit the entrance it could be possible to apply for an injunction in court through the procedure laid down in s. 249 (1) (8) of the CPR 1/2000.
These rules even provide the adoption of precautionary measures along with the lawsuit.
The rights contained in s. 18 (2) of the Spanish Constitution must be recalled in relation to the domicile. ’The home is inviolable. No entry or search may be made without the consent of the householder or a legal warrant, except in cases of flagrant delicto.’
Where the property is occupied by a non-owner it is convenient to sue both occupier and proprietor. In the event of a property owned by two or more people it shall be necessary to sue all of them. CA ruling in Girona 04-07-2001.
Once that order has been issued, if the owner is still refusing, he could be prosecuted for contempt of court.
Besides being a criminal offence, the commonhold is always entitled to compensation which should comprise the increase of the costs as a consequence of the use of the more expensive method. CA ruling in Zaragoza 15-03-2002 CA ruling in Leon 29-04-2004 SC 28-10-2005 CA ruling in Alicante 08-02-2002
9.4 Contribution to the expenses
There are two types of service charges:
i. Periodic or general which cover general expenses and fund the reserve
ii. Special service charges which are assessed to address a specific problem.
For example, if a commonhold has to face an unanticipated emergency, the OC may assess a special levy.
The administrator is required to prepare an annual budget that provides for both general operating expenses and funding reserves, and service charges should be based on this budget.
The Act indirectly provides that the commonhold is obligated to levy service charges sufficient to adequately maintain the common area. In commonhold law, the owners, not the landlord, determine service charges.
Because it is the owners who are determining the amount of service charges, an owner should not have the ability to challenge service charges on the grounds of unreasonableness.
A unit holder can challenge service charges only if the OC exceeds the scope of its authority or breaches its duty in setting the rate. In the initial stages of the commonhold , the developer will own all the unsold units and must pay service charges as an owner would, until the unit is sold.
Sometimes whilst developers are in control of the commonhold at this stage, they set the service charges artificially low in order to sell units. Once the unit-holders gain control of the OC, they discover there is not sufficient money for maintenance, repair and replacement of the building components.
In principle the distribution of the expenses must be done in accordance with the title or as it is laid down in s. 9 (1) (e) ‘to what may have been specially established’ Therefore it must be distinguished between percentages of the value of the commonhold assigned to each owner established in the title from the percentage of contribution to expense.
Both may or may not coincide; and the distribution of the expenses between owners could be agreed by the OC by ordinary resolution in some cases. CA ruling in Huesca 11-07-2008
SC 02-02-1991 06-07-1991 10-03-1993, 10-12-1990 22-12-1993, 16-11- 1996 30-04- 2002 required unanimity
It not possible to avoid contribution by alleging that a commonhold has no planning permission . The non-use of a service shall also not exempt the owner from contribution. CA ruling in Seville 06-05-2005
CA ruling in Asturias 13-02-2006
9.4.1 Duty of information about arrears
In Spanish law the completion takes place when the purchase deed is signed in the presence of a notary.
At that time the transferor shall provide a certificate issued by the secretary with the approval of the president in which it is stated that the service charges of the unit to be transferred are up to date or if not, the amount due.
This rule is not applied in cases where purchase stemmed from public auction or compulsory purchase.
In case of buying off-plan, the Royal Decree 515/1989 provides in s. 5 (2) the developer’s duty to make available to the public ‘the Articles and internal rules as well as information relating to maintenance and suppliers contracts.
If the commonhold is already running it must also be provided statement of the commonhold accounts.
Where the certificate declares the service charges being up to date, the doctrine does not agree if that certificate should include all the debts or only those referred as service charges.
126.96.36.199 Application for the certificate
Application may be done verbally, although it is convenient to do in writing. The application is beneficial to the transferor since this action will mean the compulsory notice of transfer of units provided in subsection (i) being the transferor discharged from liability for debts due from the date of that application. Where the owner applies for the certification by e-mail it may be legal to send that document by that means just in case of digital signature. Both signatures, president and secretary are required
188.8.131.52 Dischargement from the transferor or vendor
The acquirer or buyer must exonerate vendor from his obligation otherwise the notary shall not authorize the purchase. Where the buyer expressly releases the vendor, he becomes liable to the commonhold for debts ‘up to the limit of the fees assessed for the period to date of the year when the transfer of ownership took place and for the immediately precedent three years’ Nevertheless, the vendor is still liable to the buyer.
It could occur that the notary would not demand the certificate and the buyer would not exonerate the seller. In that case the buyer is liable for debts within the legal term but the notary could be sued for damages according to s. 1902 of the Civil Code It could also be possible to express in the deeds a vendor’s statement in which it is claimed that the usual charges of the commonhold are up to date, but if it is discovered later that there is actually a debt the buyer will be responsible to the commonhold even thought he will be entitled to recover the monies subsequently from the vendor.
There is no agreement in the doctrine but some of the most reputed authors hold that in the case of dischargement of that obligation, the buyer will be liable not only for the legal term provided on this section but for the amount of all the debt, regardless any term.
184.108.40.206 Certificate’s content
The courts are unclear as to what kind of expenses must be included in the certificate. Some judges hold that it must include all the expenses passed by the OC, even those which are not payable yet while others hold that only those that are presently due must be included. CA ruling in Murcia 17-04-2006 and CA ruling in Baleares 13-12-2004 CA ruling in Avila 26-11-2002
The certificate has to be issued within seven days, in case of president’s absence, the vice-president, if that office is provid
ed by the Articles may also sign the certificate.
220.127.116.11 President and secretary’s liabilities
Upon expiry of the time limit (7 days) it does not mean automatic responsibility. Carelessness is required.
Where the governing bodies do not issue the said certificate despite a transferor’s request, the commonhold shall not entitle to demand monies from the buyer later. The president and secretary will be responsible in accordance with 1104 (1) of the CC.
18.104.22.168 Defective certificate
Where the certificate is not accurate it will not be possible to harm the buyer or vendor; they will not be subsequently required to pay the difference. For those differences the secretary or/and the president could hold accountability.
22.214.171.124 Bogus certificate
Fraudulent misrepresentation is an offence provided in s. 399 of the Criminal Code which could also be a cause of contract resolution.
9.4.2 Liens for service charges
The commonhold has a statutory lien on each commonhold unit for the payment of commonhold assessment and levies. In order to ensure prompt and efficient enforcement of the commonhold’s liens for unpaid service charges, these have statutory priority over most other liens. Priority is given because service charges are used to maintain property values that benefit all unit-holders with interests in the commonhold.
9.5 Reserve fund
It is a duty that is clearly imposed on commonholds to maintain a reserve fund to finance the repair and maintenance of the common parts.
It is a special fund to build up savings against some anticipated future expense.
It is not allowed to earmark those funds to any other expense, for instance lack of cash caused by defaulting commonholders. The criteria used to allocate the contribution to this fund must be the same as the general allocation for the usual expense set out in the title.
In case of commonholder’s refusal to contribute to the fund he will be considered as a defaulter
Where the title or the Articles provides another method to fix quotas of contribution to expense different from the general allocation of the value in the commonhold, for example premises’ dischargement to contribute to the maintenance of the lift, those premises-holders must contribute initially to the fund; but if the commonhold subtracts some amount to cover expenses stemmed from those exonerated, owners of those premises are not bound to cover the amounts detracted in the next financial year. CA ruling in Soria 31-07-2002
The amount of this fund shall not be less than five per cent of the last ordinary budget and at the commencement of a new financial year the fund must be completed if any amount was ‘drawn from the reserve fund during the financial year for taking care of the upkeep and maintenance costs of the property allowed under this Act.
In this respect, it must be recalled the Additional Provision of the Act introduced by Reform Act 8/1999.
(1) Notwithstanding provisions enacted by Regional Governments in the exercise of their powers, the creation of the reserve fund regulated in section 9 (1) (f) shall comply with the following rules:
a) The fund shall be created at the time the Owners’ Committee approves the assessment corresponding to the financial year immediately after this Act is in force. New commonholds shall establish their reserve funds when adopting their first annual assessment.
b) Initially, the fund shall be endowed with no less than 2.5 per cent of the annual assessment. For this purpose, owners shall make in advance the necessary contributions in accordance with their respective assessment quota.
c) When the annual assessment for the financial year following the creation of the reserve fund is passed, said fund should be endowed with the amount necessary for it to attain the minimum amount established in section 9. (2)
The amount of the reserve fund shall not, at any time during the fiscal year, be under the limit legally established.
Those amounts drawn from the reserve fund during the financial year for taking care of the upkeep and maintenance costs of the property included in section 10 shall be computed as part of the fund for the purposes of calculating its minimum amount.
Those contributions necessary to cover the amounts detracted from the reserve fund shall be effected at the outset of the following financial year in accordance with the provisions of the preceding paragraph
Even though it seems apparent that there is no consequence when a commonhold does not create the fund, it will always be convenient to comply with the provisions set for in the Act. If any authority for any reason imposed an order compelling to do some repairs and no funds were available those owners who had opposed fund’s creation could be accountable and sued for damages.
As it is stated in s. 22 of the Act ‘the commonhold shall be liable with all its assets for any debts to third parties’.
The reserve fund is included as falling within those assets.
Regarding the ‘insurance policy covering damages to the building or, alternatively, to undertake a contract for permanent maintenance of the building and its general installations’
It is clear that that provision is not mandatory so it does not have to be arrange those kind of services.
In the case of transfer of a unit, the former owner could not apply for any refund of his contribution to that fund as it is prescribed by this section ‘the reserve fund, which shall belong to the commonhold to all effects.’ CA ruling in Alicante 21-05-2008 and CA ruling in Asturias 14-06-2005
9.6 General duty of care
The Act imposes an obligation not to breach the duty of care as defined in s. 1902 of the Civil Code as care to avoid acts or omissions which can injure others; and to indemnify others where damage is caused.
In the case of an occupier that is not the proprietor, that responsibility reaches only to him because liability laid down in the mentioned section does not reach the proprietor for the harm caused by the occupier. CA ruling in Cantabria 22-03-2004 CA ruling in Zaragoza 08-11-2004.
Other courts hold accountability to the unit-holder for actions attributed to occupiers. CA ruling in Vizcaya 22-05-2003
Where detriments are caused by the lack of maintenance of a unit, the commonhold as a whole or any of the commonholders might take action against both; the owner and the occupier. Not only the commonhold but any co-owner is entitled to sue for damages as it was held on several judgments of the Supreme Court such as 19/11/93 and 31/01/95
9.7 Notice of address for service
The address for service is simply an address where correspondence relating to the commonhold must be sent.
Where two or more units are owned by the same commonholder, it would be enough and is only mandatory to notice one of them.
Where the property is owned pro indiviso by two or more co-owners they have to decide upon which one of them notices must be served. In the latter case, lack of election shall be deemed as breach of that duty of information.
Thus, the notice served to the unit’s address shall be valid.
The address provided could be some other than the actual abode; but in principle it is required to be a Spanish postal address, although it is not prohibited to serve notices to a non- Spanish address.
Some commonholds with high percentage of owners living abroad have been passed resolutions agreeing that notices may also be served to foreign addresses.
Although there is presently no case law concerning this matter, the doctrine is divided between two positions; those who interpret the Act literally and others who hold that it is in commonholder’s benefit so it should be valid. In this respect it will not be considered as a general expense so the owner who wants to receive notices in a foreign address must pay the extra postal expenses. SC 20-03-1997
If no notice of address for service were served, the address to be sent shall be the address of the unit in the commonhold. Notices served to the occupier shall take the same effect as if were served to the owner when:
a. The owner fails to notify his address as it is compulsory as per 9 (h).
b. The unit is occupied by an individual, tenant, usufructuary even a friend who lives with or without the owner. CA ruling in Madrid 12-07-2006 and 09-03-2004
Where a recipient of a notice, such as tenant, does not deliver it to the owner it shall be deemed a non defective notice. CA ruling in Pontevedra 23-11-1998
In that case the owner could demand responsibility to the recipient. Conflicts arise because meetings and their resolutions could be void where their notices calling are not served at the address for service. CA ruling in Valencia 03-04-2007
The act remains silent regarding the use of e-mail instead of a postal address, but if the owner expressly accept and applies for that means, it would be valid and legal to provide service to an e-mail address.
Nevertheless, there is no obligation upon the governing bodies of the commonhold to accept such innovation.
The sender of emails such as president or administrator must seek verification whenever an e-mail is delivered and/or read, tracking options in software which can automatically request a return receipt, bearing in mind that the recipient may disable that feature in his software so the sender could not receive any confirmation.
The legality of the notices by electronic means in commonhold law is analyzed in other parts of this book.
9.7.1 Posting on the notice-board
Posting on the notice-board of the commonhold, if it exists or in an easily visible place is provided by the act as last resource to be used in order to serve a notice.
This sort of notice is supplementary and rarely used; it should only be used in case that the usual means were not possible and where the owner would not has indicated any address in Spain. It must include the same wording as used via other normal means, plus a statement from the secretary with the approval of the president.
It must also set out the grounds of why that method is used as well as the date and name of the owner/s.
The notice has to remain affixed to the notice board for at least three calendar days (excluding non-working days).
There is a great controversy between the Supreme Court and the Data Protection Agency.
The Agency is fining commonholds for posting list of debtors on the notice board under the Data Protection Act 15/1999. Resolutions of the Data Protection Agency 23-05-2008 and 11-09-2008
The Supreme Court holds that there is no offence because the place and the recipients are within the commonhold boundaries and the Act enables this form of notice. SC 11-12-2008
9.8 Notifying transfer of units
It is a crucial obligation because the commonhold association needs to be kept informed of who owns which unit: for levying the commonhold assessment, enforcing the rules of the commonhold and giving notice.
On the transfer of a unit, the new unit-holder must notify the secretary, of the transfer where change of ownership is due to a mortis-cause title like inheritance or by repossession in public auction.
By contrast, the obligation of notice is imposed to the former unit-holder or transferor where the title was inter-vivos, for instance purchases or gifts between living individuals.
The consequences of a failure to give notice shall cause the transferor to be jointly and severally liable ‘for charges incurred after the transfer’ thus the commonhold may require the former owner to pay the debts owed after the transfer and he may also bring an action for repayment against the buyer. CA ruling in Madrid 19-06-2008 and CA ruling in Tenerife 02-06-2008
The commonhold could recover the whole debt from any one of them individually or suing both
9.8.1 Notice of the transfer of a unit by email
Where the commonholder previously has expressed that his address of service is to be an electronic one in accordance with provisions set forth in subsection (h) it will be lawful to do so, with the relevant electronic confirmation of receipt.
Where the seller wants to escape liability he must notice the transfer of his unit.
It may occur that the commonhold knew the transfer by other means in this case transferors could save their accountability.The new buyer is included in the defaulters’ list. CA ruling in Cantabria 21-11-2005 or attends meetings CA ruling in Valencia 15-11-2004.