The Supreme Court endorses notifying neighbors that a defaulter is looking for a house in the same residential area

The Supreme Court (SC) has endorsed the conduct of an administrator of a homeowners' association who posted notices around the residential area informing neighbors that some tenants who had been evicted for non-payment intended to rent another home in the same residential complex.

According to the Civil Chamber's ruling, reported by Europa Press, a homeowner informed the administrator that the couple he had evicted, and whom he had also reported for taking several items from the home, was trying to rent in the same residential area and still had access because they retained the garage remote and the main door key.

The administrator posted notices with this information in the six stairways and twelve elevators of the residential area, and the evicted couple sued both the administrator and the homeowner for violating their rights to honor and privacy. In their lawsuit, they explained that they had not been able to rent a new home in the same residential area as a result of these notices.

A court in Alicante partially upheld the lawsuit, considering that the content of the notices was not entirely truthful and ordered the administrator to compensate the plaintiffs with 7,000 euros, who were asking for 10,000 euros. Additionally, it ordered him to publish the ruling on the notice boards of the six stairways and twelve elevators. The ruling was confirmed by the Alicante Court, which found that the administrator had exceeded his duties.

However, the Supreme Court disagrees. In its opinion, and in line with what was argued by the Prosecutor's Office, "the disseminated information is legitimized by the right to freedom of information, broadly speaking, as it was of interest to the homeowners' association, essentially truthful and made without defamatory intent."

For the First Chamber, the administrator acted "in defense of the interests of the members of said community" because "the information was of interest in the area where it was disseminated," as "it affected both common and individual interests of the community members."

The SC emphasizes that "the content of the notices does not respond to a mere rumor but to a series of written communications made by one of the homeowners integrated into the community, which even included a report filed with the National Police, giving these communications a greater appearance of seriousness."

The Chamber, in an opinion by Judge Rafael Sarazá, adds that it is not disputed that the plaintiffs were evicted from said home for non-payment of almost all rental payments and did not voluntarily hand over the property once judgment was passed; instead, eviction was carried out by judicial commission.

In fact, the high court notes that in their own lawsuit they acknowledge their intention to rent again a home in the same residential area from which they had been evicted for failing to meet their rental contract obligations from almost the beginning of their tenancy.

Therefore, it concludes that "although this is not strictly an application of neutral reportage doctrine, it can be considered that reasonable diligence was observed in verifying the information contained in questioned notices, which indicated their source as a neighbor from a particular residence within the residential area."

Finally, The Supreme Court states that appellant is also right when highlighting that no value judgments or offensive or injurious expressions were used in drafting these notices beyond conveying essentially truthful information of interest within its dissemination scope (the homeowners' association).