We are not judges and we are not lawyers. We are people with common sense who looked into what has happened to our money and our property. The laws we cite are publicly accessible. What they say confirms what every owner has long suspected.
This article does not seek to prosecute anyone. It aims to show what went wrong — and why it is now up to those involved to clean things up together, before a court does it for them.
The decision that started it all
A change of administrator in a homeowners community with well over 100 owners is a complex matter. Just how complex is shown by a professional transition plan drawn up specifically for this handover: more than 50 measures, 9 of them classified as immediate actions to be completed within 72 hours. Change the locks, secure bank access, send the outgoing administrator a Burofax demanding the handover of documents, draw up an inventory, inform owners. Not a wish list — every measure corresponds to the requirements of the law and the standards of the Colegio de Administradores.
(Note: In the original document, Eugenia Talavera Plata is erroneously referred to as Eugenia Pedro.)
For exactly these kinds of tasks a homeowners community has governing bodies: the elected secretary, the Junta. People who are designated by law and the statutes for precisely this purpose.
President William Enrique Reyes had a choice. He could tackle this task together with his Junta — or he could hand it to a single person he trusted. He chose the latter. He handed everything to his long-standing trusted lawyer Eugenia Talavera Plata. Not to the elected secretary. Not to the Junta. To Eugenia — a person without an elected office, without a mandate from the owners' assembly, without any duty of accountability to us.
William had to travel to Cuba shortly afterwards due to a bereavement in his immediate family. That is understandable on a human level and is not what is at issue here. What is at issue is the decision he made before he left. Because with that decision he took on an enormous personal responsibility — for everything that would happen or fail to happen afterwards.
"Ok perfecto" — and then nothing
Eugenia received the transition plan. Her response: "Ok perfecto."
After that, not a single one of the more than 50 measures was implemented. Not one. Locks not changed, Burofax never sent, bank access not updated, no inventory — the full timeline of failures is set out in Part 1 of this series. And Eugenia went further still: she actively excluded the elected secretary from the administrative work. The community's oversight body was not allowed to function. The control mechanism had been switched off.
What the law says about delegation
Art. 13.5 LPH: The secretary is a mandatory body of the community — required by law, not optional. Excluding him is a breach of the law.
Art. 14 LPH: The Junta is the decision-making body. The president cannot unilaterally dispose of the administration.
Art. 1.903 Código Civil: Whoever delegates a task to a person not designated for it bears personal liability for all consequences. Responsibility does not pass to the person instructed — it remains with the person who gave the instruction.
William handed everything to an external lawyer without an elected office. The bodies provided for by law were bypassed. He therefore bears personal liability.
The theft — and what really disappeared
In this situation — unlocked premises, no inventory, no oversight, the outgoing administrator still with access — community-owned computers disappeared from the CC Cita premises.
The material damage is one thing. But far more serious is what was stored on those computers: data that could have shed light on whether the previous administration under Adhover had operated cleanly. Accounts, contracts, correspondence — the basis for any review of the past years. That possibility is now gone.
And then something inexplicable happened: no criminal complaint was filed.
Why no complaint?
Think it through. Had William filed a complaint, the police would have investigated. And they would have asked questions: Why had the locks not been changed? Why did the outgoing administrator still have access? Why was there a complete security plan and none of it was implemented? Why was the secretary not allowed to work?
Every single one of those questions would have led straight back to William's decision to hand everything to Eugenia — and to Eugenia's failure to implement even one of the planned measures. An investigation would have been very uncomfortable. For both of them.
We are making no accusation. We are noting that there is a question that demands to be asked — and that was never asked, because there was no investigation.
What the law says about the duty to report
Art. 13.3 LPH: The president is the legal representative of the community — "en juicio y fuera de él." When community property is stolen, he is the person who must act.
Art. 259 LECrim: Anyone who becomes aware of a criminal offence is obliged to report it.
Art. 262 LECrim: An enhanced duty applies to persons who become aware of an offence "by reason of their office." The president of a homeowners community falls within this category.
The criminal law dimension
Up to this point we are in the realm of civil law: breach of duty, liability, damages. But the overall picture raises questions that go further. Whether they apply can only be decided by a court. But the question of whether they ought to be examined answers itself.
Misappropriation (Art. 252 Código Penal)
Anyone who holds administrative powers over another's assets and breaches their duties, causing damage to the assets under their management, commits a criminal offence. Since the 2015 reform this applies expressly to administrators of homeowners communities as well. Sentencing range: 6 months to 6 years.
A professional plan for securing community assets was in place. It was not implemented. Computers containing the entire accounts disappeared. The bank accounts remained under outside control.
Concealment (Art. 451 Código Penal)
Anyone who, knowing that an offence has been committed, acts to obstruct its investigation is guilty of aiding and abetting. In the case of persons with a duty of guarantee — and the president has one by law — even the failure to file a report may be treated as concealment. Sentencing range: 6 months to 3 years.
It is also worth noting that the Tribunal Supremo has developed, across several rulings, a doctrine of ignorancia deliberada — whoever does not wish to know what they can and must know cannot claim ignorance as a defence. Whether this doctrine could apply here is a question for lawyers, not for us.
The chain of causation
| What happened | Provision | Legal question |
|---|---|---|
| Junta and secretary bypassed, Eugenia installed without a mandate | Art. 13.5 / 14 LPH, Art. 1.903 CC | Who is liable for the consequences of the delegation? |
| Transition plan received, "Ok perfecto", nothing implemented | Art. 1.101 / 1.718 CC | Does a breach of duty exist? |
| Locks not changed, Adhover retained access | Art. 1.902 CC | Who bears responsibility for the resulting damage? |
| Computers disappeared — direct consequence of the failure to secure the premises | Consequence of 1–3 | Could the loss have been prevented? |
| Theft not reported despite official duty to do so | Art. 259 / 262 LECrim | Why was no complaint filed? |
| Overall picture: administrative duties breached, financial damage incurred | Art. 252 CP | Should this be examined by a court? |
18 April
And now we come to the point. On 18 April an extraordinary Junta takes place. It has been put forward that Eugenia should be elected as the official administrator of CC Cita.
William, whose solo decision led to this situation, therefore wants the owners to give the official position to the very person who said "Ok perfecto" and then did nothing. Who excluded the secretary. Under whose oversight computers containing the entire accounts disappeared. Who filed no complaint.
The question for every owner is simple: should we follow the judgement of a president whose last judgement failed? And should we reward the person who failed with the official position on top of it?
Questions for the Junta on 18 April
- Why was the Junta not involved in the change of administrator?
- On what legal basis was Eugenia entrusted with the administration on her own?
- Why was the elected secretary excluded?
- Why was not a single measure in the transition plan implemented?
- Where are the missing computers? Was a criminal complaint filed? If not — why not?
- Who currently has access to the community's bank accounts?
- Why should we follow the recommendation of a president whose last recommendation failed?
- Why Eugenia — and not a qualified, accredited Administrador de Fincas Colegiado?
What the right course of action would be now
This investigation shows that many mistakes were made. By William, who bypassed his Junta. By Eugenia, who implemented nothing. By Adhover, who refused to let go after the handover. No single individual bears all the blame — but together they have created a situation that cannot continue as it is.
It would be time for those involved to sit down together and sort things out. Return the computers or report the theft. Give owners access to the accounts. Finally change the locks. Adhover hands over authority and documents. The million that is unaccounted for reappears. Transparency instead of silence.
We hope that common sense prevails. That responsibility is taken before a court has to assign it.
But if not
Then you as an owner have the right to ask questions at the Junta. You have the right to vote no. A quarter of the owners can call an extraordinary meeting at any time (Art. 16 LPH). Resolutions that violate the law can be challenged (Art. 18 LPH).
CC Cita does not belong to William. It does not belong to Eugenia. It belongs to us. And it is our money.
On 18 April there will be a vote. Be there.