C.C. Cita: Why the conflict with the new presidency is escalating

Eight weeks instead of ten days

One question imposes itself before listening to the recording: why did these minutes only reach the owners on 29 April — fifty-three days after the assembly? Article 19.3 of Spain’s Horizontal Property Act (Ley de Propiedad Horizontal, BOE) provides that minutes are to be closed “at the end of the session or within the following ten natural days”. In the present case, more than five times that period elapsed.

With each week that passes between assembly and signature, what owners take with them from the room — memory — fades. What remained on paper was a draft that misrepresented the result of the vote from the outset.

“Twenty-six against. Not approved.”

The second item on the agenda of the ordinary assembly of 7 March 2026 was the approval of the 2025 balance sheet. After an hour of debate, the vote was held. The result was announced in the room by the person acting as clerk of the session.

The statement, captured at second 141 of the recording, reads verbatim:

“So it is understood that the accounts are not considered approved. Uh, not approved, as there are twenty-six votes against, against twenty-two in favour and two abstentions, which means 12.77 per cent in favour and 18.91 per cent against.” — Clerk in the room, CC Cita assembly, 7.3.2026

An owner present added, audible to the room, the arithmetic conclusion:

“Nineteen per cent against and twelve in favour — nineteen is more than twelve, that is clear.”

18.906 % > 12.77 %. Under Article 17 of Spain’s Horizontal Property Act (Ley de Propiedad Horizontal), that is sufficient. The balance sheet was rejected.

What the signed minutes say: “approved by majority”

The official minutes of the same assembly reached the owners on 29 April 2026 — eight weeks after the session. The wording on item 2 reads:

“The balance sheet as of 31.12.2025 is approved by the majority of those present and represented.”

Two independent sources — the clerk in the room and the lawyer present — confirm the same result. The wording of item 2, signed by three different people, asserts the opposite.

The 25 March draft already contained the error

On 25 March 2026, José Hernández Pérez, outgoing administrator, sent a first draft of the minutes. The PDF metadata identify him as the author. That draft already contained the wording “the balance sheet as of 31.12.2025 is approved”.

That same 25 March, the acting secretary notified the error in writing. On 26 March, a lawyer present at the assembly confirmed the actual result in writing: 26 votes against, balance not approved.

Hernández Pérez did not correct the document. The final version of the minutes is textually identical to the draft on item 2.

Three signatures, one missing

The minutes bear three signatures: José Antonio Matos Pérez (outgoing president), William Enrique Reyes (new president) and Jeswani (new vice-president). Article 19.3 LPH also requires the secretary’s signature. The signature of the acting secretary — named in the document itself — is missing. The missing signature deprives the minutes of one of the two formal requirements under Article 19.3 LPH. Challenge under Article 18 LPH remains possible independently; the ordinary deadline expires on 7 June 2026.

What this means for the resolutions of 18 April

Six weeks after the assembly of 7 March, on 18 April 2026, an extraordinary Junta de Propietarios (owners’ assembly) was held, at which a new presidency was elected (voting rights). Among other items, the 2026 budget, new banking authorisations and a representation mandate were resolved (assembly decisions). These resolutions were adopted on the assumption that the 2025 balance sheet was approved.

If the audio of the 7 March session shows that this approval never took place, then the resolutions adopted on 18 April lack their arithmetic precondition. A 2026 budget presupposes an approved 2025 balance sheet. A banking authorisation built on a non-approved prior-year balance stands on the same ground.

There is a second finding. On 18 April, the minutes of the 7 March session had not yet been signed — signing took place 10 days later, on 29 April 2026. Resolutions on 18 April were therefore taken on the basis of a balance whose approval had not, at that moment, been formally established.

Article 18 LPH opens an independent challenge period for the 18 April resolutions as well. It runs three months from adoption — that is, until 18 July 2026. In case of a violation of law or statute, the period extends to one year — until 18 April 2027.

Whether the 18 April resolutions hold is a question that owners may wish to have examined. The minutes of the 7 March session and the audio documentation of the vote are the starting point.