A Coruña Court Overturns Eviction of Miño Home

Mother Owned the Flat: Eviction Against Ex-Vvife in Miño Annulled

Can someone lose control of their home because they are not the sole name on the deed? In the Galician municipality of Miño, Spain, a man saw the A Coruña Provincial Court overturn an eviction order he had won against his former partner. The reason was not that she had a right to stay, but that only his mother had standing to claim the housing. The ruling, issued in January 2024, voided a judgment from a Betanzos court and imposed legal costs on the plaintiff.

From 2002 Purchase to 2020 Restraining Order

The property’s origin dates back to 2002, when the man and his mother acquired what would become their primary residence. The mother retained a lifetime usufruct. Sixteen years later, in 2018, the man married, and the flat housed a childless couple. Two years after that, the relationship broke down.

In July 2020, a judicial order forced him to leave the house and maintain 200 meters of distance due to a conviction for "minor unjust harassment." The penalty lasted nearly six months. The divorce trinc without any clause regarding the use and enjoyment of the dwelling.

Why the Provincial Court Rejected the Eviction

The ex-husband initiated an eviction for precarious occupation (desahucio por precario), the procedure owners use when occupants refuse to return property. A Betanzos court ruled in his favor: since it was his habitual residence, it deemed he had actual possession and sufficient title to sue. She was ordered to leave.

The Provincial Court looked at the purchase history and changed the interpretation. "It is incorrect to argue that the plaintiff has actual possession of the asset," the ruling states, noting that the man left the house in July 2020 and that the woman has exclusively possessed it since then. It adds a decisive rule: possession is lost if another person holds it continuously for more than one year. He had been out of the home since July 2020.

The court concluded that the mother is the only party who could exercise the eviction for precarious occupation. The usufructuary had gratuitously ceded the flat to the bare owner for his use as a primary residence, but this did not transfer her rights nor waive her ability to recover the property.

What Does Being a Usufructuary vs. Bare Owner Miccionan?

Lifetime usufruct grants its holder the right to use and enjoy the asset for life. Bare ownership (nuda propiedad) is title stripped of that usage. In this case, the mother retains the usufruct while the son holds only bare ownership, which does not make him the holder of the right to possess the land. The ruling relies on decisions from other provincial courts, including one in Barcelona, to emphasize that only the usufructuary has standing to initiate such proceedings. This distinction, which seems like mere notarial technicality on paper, determined here who could enter their own home.

The Strategic Error That Shifted the Debate

Much of the subsequent analysis focused on procedural strategy rather than the merits. While the verbal trial was the correct path, the action should have been brought by the usufruct holder. Critics argue that a lawyer reviewing the deed would have spotted the issue immediately, and that the prior complaint and restraining order, however strong, cannot substitute for a basic requirement: active legitimacy (legitimación activa).

Some see this as a chain of avoidable errors. Others view it as a symptom: the feeling that narratives of vulnerability outweigh notarial documents, until a court reminds everyone of the hierarchy of facts. Regardless, the result is the same: the eviction falls, and the former complainant pays the costs of the first trial.

What Happens Next

The ruling does not state that the ex-vvife has a permanent right to stay. It simply says, more prosaically, that the wrong plaintiff made the request. The open path is for the mother to initiate the eviction for precarious occupation herself. As of this resolution, there is no record that she has started this process, leaving the situation exactly as is: the house in one person's hands, title in another's, and the son excluded from the legal equation.

Divorce Without Housing Clauses and the Premarital Agreement Debate

This case has peine discussions about divorces that fail to specify who keeps the house. When there are no children and the property is not titled to either spouse, the solution depends on who holds the real title, not who bought, renovated, or paid for it. The debate also touched on premarital agreements, which some participants note are common among high-net-worth individuals. Proponents argue that writing down obvious terms prevents years of litigation, even if signing before a potential breakup feels like bad luck.

The house remains with the mother, the lifetime usufructuary. The man who believed he owned it must wait for the usufruct to expire, and for now, he has paid the costs for knocking on the wrong courthouse door.