Maricarmen, 87: Eviction, €200 rent and repealed law

Timeline of an eviction that ended on Alcalde Sainz de Baranda street

An 87-year-old woman, known as Maricarmen, died after being evicted from the home she had lived in for seven decades in central Madrid. The eviction was carried out with police presence, and the news broke when a neighborhood march stopped in front of her building to hold a moment of silence with mobile phone flashlights on. Public debate turned toxic within hours: some blamed the market, others the law, and almost no one agreed on the most basic fact—how much the tenant actually paid.

What is known about the eviction and the property

The most repeated version claims the woman had lived in the same apartment for 70 years. The most cited counter-argument is that the property was no longer her home: she was offered the chance to buy it but refused, and had sufficient resources. There is open disagreement regarding the rent. One source states she paid less than €200 per month; another asserts that the owner’s mortgage on that apartment amounts to €1,800 monthly. These two figures circulate unreconciled and explain why the case became a battleground.

The Urban Leases Act (Ley de Arrendamientos Urbanos), with its mandatory renewal regime, appears in almost all messages. The most repeated accusation is that its repeal—attributed to Socialist governments—removed protections that would have kept this woman in her home. The response from the other side is that there was an alternative relocation offer at a residence in Alcalá de Henares, provided for life, which was rejected on the advice of a tenants' union that allegedly pushed her toward permanent conflict.

How much did Maricarmen pay and how much did the flat cost?

Here lies the core of the issue and also its trap. If the rent was under €200 and the owner faced a €1,800 mortgage, the monthly difference exceeds €1,600, a loss someone had to cover out of pocket. This calculation, repeated in various formats, supports the thesis that the landlord was not making a profit but financing a deficit. The obvious objection is that the owner could have sold, and the market price of an apartment in that area would have more than compensated for any shortfall.

Some add a nuance that few dispute: the woman had the right to stay and also the right to move to a flat she could afford. She chose the former, with lawyers and associative support. The result was a lengthy judicial procedure, an eviction by riot police, and a death that came later, when an agreement to return to the property had already been reached.

The comparison that causes outrage: other evictions without media focus

The most uncomfortable argument in this case is asymmetry. In the same period, hundreds of thousands of evictions for non-payment have occurred, with documented suicides among middle-aged people who had contributed to social security for decades. One cited case is that of a man in Hospitalet, with 36 years of contributions and two children, who took his own life. None received a march with flashlights.

The explanation given from the other side is that media attention does not measure pain, but political utility. A case involving an elderly woman, central Madrid, and a union behind it becomes a symbol; an eviction in a peripheral neighborhood becomes a statistic. And that asymmetry, far from being resolved, has become the main reason for anger: each side accuses the other of using the deceased.

Political use of the case and the housing law

The eviction coincided with the processing of housing measures and the Barcelona City Council’s announcement to eliminate all tourist flats starting in 2028. The opposition used this to demand legal changes; the Government pointed out that it had already attempted to legislate and that its packages included debated elements, such as incentives for long-term savings within the law itself. The result is a crossfire of accusations where each party attributes the death to the rule defended or repealed by the other.

What remains clear, as of this discussion, is that there is no single cause. There is an old tenancy, an owner with costs, an administration with limited tools, a union with a strategy, and an 87-year-old woman caught in the middle. The judicial outcome was already written; the political one remains open.