An Airbnb document has led to a definitive legal victory for an ex-husband in Mogán, in southern Gran Canaria, who has managed to maintain his legal right to live in what was once the family home, an apartment, despite his ex-wife's attempts to evict him. The court in Las Palmas, in a ruling obtained by Maspalomas24H, rejected the lawsuit filed by the property owner, who sought to evict her ex-husband on the grounds that they were no longer a couple and that she had given him another nearby property. However, the court determined that the man had not lost his right of occupancy, a lifetime permit stipulated in the apartment's deeds.
The key to the case, according to the ruling, was proving that the other property the woman had given him was not his primary residence, but a business. The ex-husband submitted documents and an Airbnb certificate as evidence, proving that the second property was rented to tourists year-round, meaning his true home remained the apartment in dispute, thus maintaining the lien on his ex-wife's property.
The Provincial Court of Las Palmas has dismissed the appeal filed by a homeowner seeking to terminate her ex-husband's right of habitation over an apartment in the tourist town of Mogán, in southern Gran Canaria. The ruling, which upholds the decision of the Court of First Instance No. 3 of San Bartolomé de Tirajana, sets an important precedent regarding the restrictive interpretation of the grounds for terminating this real right, especially in contexts of marital breakdown. The court rejected the arguments of tacit waiver, implied resolutory condition, and abuse of rights put forward by the plaintiff, also validating key documentary evidence submitted by the defense: a booking certificate from the Airbnb platform.
The litigation stems from a complex web of real estate transactions between the former couple, who were married under a separation of property regime. The apartment in question was purchased by the plaintiff in December 2015, but the public deed expressly stated that the sale was subject to a right of habitation in favor of her then-husband, a property that had been the family home. Years later, during divorce proceedings, the owner attempted to release her property from this encumbrance. Among her arguments, she maintained that her ex-husband did not need the apartment because she had gifted him the bare ownership of another bungalow in the same town, and that maintaining both properties constituted an abuse of rights.
Regarding the alleged abuse of rights due to the supposed "unnecessity" of the right of habitation, the court analyzed the property history and concluded, based on testimonial and documentary evidence, that the situation of each of the former spouses did not substantially change after the encumbrance was established. The key to refuting the plaintiff's argument was the ex-husband's submission of an Airbnb certificate demonstrating that the donated bungalow was not intended to be his primary residence, but rather for economic exploitation as a vacation rental.
The court notes that the property in question was rented out under a holiday rental agreement throughout 2018, while the couple's primary residence remained the apartment encumbered by the right of habitation, even during the divorce proceedings. Consequently, the Provincial Court fully upholds the lower court's ruling, maintaining the full validity of the right of habitation and ordering the plaintiff to pay the costs of the appeal.
