The law clarifies whether there are neighbors who can avoid paying community fees even if they are asked to do so.

The homeowners' association is an essential component of the management of any building or development. No one is unaware that, as co-owners, we are obligated to contribute to the maintenance of common services and charges in accordance with the provisions of Article 9 of the Horizontal Property Law (LPH). This regulation clearly establishes that each owner must assume general expenses according to the share assigned in the title or bylaws. However, there are exceptional cases in which a neighbor may be exempt , totally or partially, from certain community payments.

The legal framework itself recognizes that community contributions are the rule. The aforementioned Article 9.1.e of the LPH establishes that all owners must cover the general expenses necessary for the maintenance of the property, its services, and common charges, unless "something specifically established." This exception introduces a clearly restrictive legal loophole for explicit exemptions. Furthermore, Article 9.2 of the LPH emphasizes that non-use of a service is not sufficient to exempt oneself , with few exceptions. Therefore, the simple fact of not using an elevator, swimming pool, or other common facility does not justify failing to pay.

Only the existence of a clear clause in the bylaws or the articles of incorporation can justify an exemption. In this regard, case law indicates that, without an express provision, it cannot be considered individualizable or exempt. Thus, premises with independent access that do not use the entrance hall, stairs, or elevator may be exempted, if legally provided for. However, exemption for non-use is only permitted if expressly provided for ; otherwise, the owner remains obligated, even for services they do not use. Furthermore, in the case of new installations deemed necessary, such as an elevator for accessibility reasons, the prior exemption is not valid, and everyone must contribute .

It's also possible for a meeting to unanimously agree on a temporary or permanent exemption for a resident or business . In these cases, the statutory option isn't essential, but the agreement must be clearly reflected in the minutes.

On the other hand, the LPH stipulates that if innovations, installations, or improvements are proposed that are not essential for the building's preservation, habitability, accessibility, or safety, and whose cost exceeds three ordinary monthly payments , those who vote against are exempt from paying. However, they will not be able to enjoy these improvements either .

In short, the law and jurisprudence indicate that the obligation to pay is the norm, and exemptions are only permitted under a series of strict conditions . This was recently confirmed by property manager Miguel Fernández Gallego, who insists that none of these exemptions operate "by personal decree" and that they are only valid if they are in writing , and any modification requires unanimity among the owners .