What it is about — the short version
On 18 April 2026 the Comunidad of Centro Comercial Cita voted in a new administration. The lawyer Eugenia Talavera Plata now holds management, secretariat and legal advice to the community — in one pair of hands, for a flat fee of 3,000 euros a month. That she is also the president's trusted lawyer — she had already spoken on his behalf at the January junta and at the 7 March junta — was not on the agenda, and it was not mentioned when she was introduced. A bargain, at first glance.
At second glance, it is four hats on one head.
⚖️ Before and after 18 April
Before — several heads (LPH Art. 13.1):
- President — William Enrique Reyes
- Acting Secretary — Matthias Camenzind (until 6 April)
- Administrator — Administraciones Horizontal y Vertical S.L.
- Lawyers — external firms
After — one person, four roles:
- President — William Enrique Reyes
- Administrator, Secretary, in-house lawyer to the Comunidad — Eugenia Talavera Plata (EUTAPLA Grupo SLU)
- Trusted lawyer to the president — the same. She had already spoken on his behalf at the January and March 2026 juntas.
LPH Art. 13.6 allows secretary and administrator to be held by the same person. On anything beyond that, the law is silent. Perhaps because no one had pictured it.
Cita in crisis
The Cita was once the heart of shopping in Playa del Inglés. Today, in the most recent report of the municipality of San Bartolomé de Tirajana, it appears on a short list of eight — among the town's "obsolete" shopping centres. The Yumbo, three streets away, is not on that list. Outside, the island is booming. Inside the Cita, units have stood empty for months, tenants' takings fall year after year, and the security situation prompts the kind of conversations residents would rather not have.
Anyone walking into the Saturday morning junta here is more than an owner. They are living inside a long, slow exhaustion — and in that mood, "3,000 euros, all in" sounds like the call everyone has been waiting for.
Three questions no one asked
1 · The minutes that never came
The March 7 junta was no formality: a new board, a change of president by 40–27, the outgoing manager not renewed. Forty-two days later: no minutes, just a page and a half from that same outgoing manager. It contains no vote tally, no list of resolutions — and on the 2025 budget it records the exact opposite of what happened that day. It was rejected. The 1.5 pages claim it was approved. The 2026 budget is built on that reversed result: the very same figure that failed to carry a majority in March now appears as the baseline. The LPH Art. 18 challenge window keeps ticking — formally against a non-document, in practice against an untruth.
2 · The computers that walked off
Why no police report when the office computers disappeared? An employee — first name Enrique — is said to have allowed the son of the late former president Cristóbal to take the machines away, believing they held the son's personal records. The Comunidad's records were on those same machines. The president's classification on 18 April: "not theft, but a breach of law." Where the machines are today: not discussed. The exact legal classification remains to be clarified. What does not remain to be clarified: the records of a legal entity to which the board owes a fiduciary duty have vanished — and to this day no formal response has come.
On bank access, the president said that since 7 March the board had "not been able to work." In March, he had put it rather differently:
📱 Written message from the president, 31 March 2026
WhatsApp to the then-secretary, 20:04–20:06:
"Aquí se llevaron los ordenadores de la oficina"
"Nos quitaron el acceso a las cuentas"
"En fin todo ha sido un desmadre"Translation: "Someone carried off the office computers. — They took our access to the accounts away from us. — Basically the whole thing has been a shambles."
Originals on file with the editorial office.
"Not been able to work" describes a paralysis. "Our access was taken away" describes an act. Which version is the right one could be found out. Someone would only have to ask. A written list of 54 specific questions, sent to the president on 1 April, remains unanswered to this day.
3 · The candidate who was already there
According to this newsroom's research, Eugenia Talavera Plata had already spoken on behalf of President Enrique Reyes at the January and 7 March 2026 juntas — before being elected administrator on 18 April. On 8 March — the day after the handover — she received the incoming board's transition plan and replied simply, "Ok perfecto." For the next six weeks she was, effectively, the person coordinating the handover. The same six weeks in which the locks were not changed, the bank access was not secured, and the computers were not retrieved.
▾ What the legal profession's code says
The invitation to the 18 April junta listed only "election of an administrador and secretary" — no name. Owners learned who the candidate was only once they were in the room. Her dual role: not disclosed. Article 12 of the Código Deontológico de la Abogacía Española — the code of conduct for Spanish lawyers — requires any lawyer to disclose every situation that even looks like a conflict of interest. On 18 April, Article 12 did not get a word in.
Two questions, two minutes, majority
From the floor came the obvious objection: why not compare offers before tying oneself to the one candidate on the table? The objection was answered by calling the vote right away. "¿Quién se opone?" — who is against? A brief pause, then, straight after it, "¿Alguien más?" — anyone else? That second question is only asked by someone who has already got an answer to the first. How many votes against there actually were, the notes do not record. They only state: a majority. That is not the same as unanimous.
Two budgets, one missing link — and what the law actually says
2025 Budget
7 March assemblyRejected.
MinutesNever published.
18 April assemblyBuried — never put on the agenda.
Bottom line2025 accounts not approved.
2026 Budget
Actual 2025 spend€705,974
2026 draft€879,536
Increase+24.6 % — the very figure rejected on 7 March.
Of which staff+€44,000 vs. 2025.
The Contradiction
Sold asFlat fee €3,000/month for management, secretariat and in-house lawyer — savings on staff costs.
In factThe staff line in the budget goes up by €44,000.
JustificationNone. On 7 March nobody would say why 2025 staff costs were so high. Now they are higher still.
The budget no one has explained
There was no fresh budget to put to the meeting — there was no administrator to prepare one. So the outgoing board's draft was adopted as is: 879,536 euros in expenditure, plus a 10 % reserve fund, for a total of 967,490 euros in 2026. That very draft had been placed before the same owners on 7 March — and was overwhelmingly rejected. Forty-two days on, without a single line changed, it passes. What changed in six weeks is not the figure. It is whether anyone still asks. The accounts hold around 615,000 euros — assuming the accounts and their access have found their way back to each other by now.
▾ The legal picture — is this even allowed?
Is any of this actually lawful? Short answer: partly — but with a real gap. A junta is allowed to take a budget it rejected in March, put it back on the table in April and carry it by majority. Spanish law (Art. 19.3 LPH) makes such decisions effective straight away. So far, so clean.
There is still the law. Spain's Horizontal Property Act (Art. 16.1 LPH) requires owners to approve the budget every year. On 18 April the 2026 draft was approved. The 2025 accounts were not — rejected on 7 March, never minuted, never put on the 18 April agenda. The scandal is not procedural. It is in the figure: reject a budget on 7 March because no one can say why staff costs are so high, then approve the same figure on 18 April with an extra €44,000 on staff — while a €3,000 flat fee for management, secretariat and lawyer is being sold as a staff saving — and you have a problem formalities will not paper over.
Challenge: owners have three months to challenge a resolution (one year where law or the statutes are breached — Art. 18 LPH). Standing: anyone who recorded a dissenting vote, who was absent, or who was wrongly denied a vote. The clock runs from 18 April.
💸 The number no one has explained
- Actual spending in 2025: 705,974 €
- Draft budget 2026: 879,536 €
- Difference: +173,562 € (+25 %)
Breakdown: staff costs +44,000 € · cleaning +50 % · awnings +55 % · security up sharply.
On the other side: uncollected service charges €1.9 million — legal costs spent on collecting them in 2025: €3,568.
A community that trims the arcades and leaves the payroll untouched is not one that explains itself. Questions about the 2025 budget were already raised in these pages — and remain unanswered. The 2026 draft simply adds another layer on top, with no one in place to justify it. It was adopted anyway.
The new administrator put the cost of a full renovation at four to five million euros over ten years — roughly eight times the sum currently sitting in the accounts. What was produced to back that figure: nothing. No survey, no quote, no scope of works. Eugenia Talavera Plata is a lawyer, not a quantity surveyor. A number of that magnitude, pulled from the air, is not a renovation plan. It is a statement about the order of magnitude the incoming administration will be working — and deciding — in.
Why the order of events matters
The decisive feature of this junta is not the vote. It is the order in which things were done. The decision was taken before the minutes of 7 March existed. Before the computers and the bank access had been clarified. Before the candidate's dual role was on the table. Before anyone had explained the budget increase. The clarification that, in an orderly handover, would come before the vote, has been put in place of it instead.
Separation of powers is not a luxury one affords when things are going well. It is the safeguard one activates when they are not — and at the Cita things have not been going well for quite some time. Where one person administers, keeps the minutes and provides legal advice to the community — while also being the president's trusted lawyer — no second set of eyes is left inside the bodies of the Comunidad. The oversight function the law places on several shoulders now rests on the owners themselves. For that, they have to notice it first.
❓ What to watch in the coming weeks
- Will the minutes of 7 March actually arrive?
- Where are the computers, and who holds which data?
- Will the budget increase be justified line by line?
- Will the administrator's dual role become visible in her decisions — or will it quietly vanish whenever it matters?
The Cita has survived a great deal over the decades. What it needs now is not the cheapest solution, but the cleanest.
CITA News will be following it.
Editorial note
Matthias Camenzind is the publisher and editor-in-chief of CITA News and Administrador Único of a company that is an owner at Centro Comercial Cita. In that capacity he represents one owner in the Comunidad de Propietarios. On 7 March 2026 he was appointed acting secretary (Secretario en funciones) of the newly elected Junta de Gobierno and held the role until 6 April 2026. These conflicts of interest are hereby disclosed. Individuals named may send statements and corrections at any time to [email protected].
Legal notice
Protected by Article 20 of the Spanish Constitution. All statements of fact are based on written, documented sources.