Foreclosure

The Supreme Court (SC) has resolved a case of eviction for precarious possession in which a company requested that the person occupying a home be evicted. The company claimed to be the owner and demanded that the occupant leave because they had no valid title to remain there.

The occupant defended himself by alleging that he was the former mortgage debtor and that the home had been awarded to Banco Santander in a foreclosure . According to his version, the company was linked to the bank itself (even stating that the bank was its sole partner) and that, therefore, a "precarious possession" should not be used, but everything should be resolved within the mortgage procedure , in addition to insinuating a possible "fraud" to avoid the protection of Law 1/2013.

The lawsuit was dismissed in the first instance and at the Provincial Court , they considered that, due to that connection with the bank and the existence of previous negotiations (such as emails about a possible purchase), the company could not act as a third party completely unrelated and, therefore, the precarious possession was not the appropriate route.

However, the Supreme Court upholds the appeal . It emphasizes that the company tried to intervene in the mortgage foreclosure to request the eviction, but the court denied it because that procedure had been archived years before, and that decision became final. In addition, the occupant had been living in the property for over 10 years without providing a title to justify staying there, nor did he prove during the precarious possession trial a situation of vulnerability protected by Law 1/2013. Taking all this into account, the Supreme Court concludes that eviction is appropriate due to precarious possession and orders the property to be vacated.

Our professionals can provide you with adequate advice on eviction procedures