Damages from Neglected Condominium Maintenance: The Court of Cassation with Order No. 16435 of 2025 Clarifies Extracontractual Liability

The condominium is a complex legal microcosm, where the coexistence of exclusive properties and common areas often generates delicate issues, especially when it comes to damages arising from lack of maintenance. In this scenario, Order No. 16435 of the Court of Cassation, filed on June 18, 2025, serves as a beacon of clarity, sharply defining the nature of liability and its consequences, especially for those acquiring property. This ruling is of fundamental importance for administrators, condominium owners, and prospective buyers, as it establishes clear principles regarding compensation for damages.

The Position of the Injured Party: A Third Party to the Condominium

The central issue addressed by the Court of Cassation concerns the legal qualification of a property owner who suffers damages due to the neglected maintenance of the building's common areas. The Supreme Court, with the Order in question, has reiterated a now consolidated principle: the injured owner does not act as a condominium owner in the strict sense, but assumes the position of a "third party" who suffers harm. This distinction is crucial, as it directly impacts the type of liability applicable.

According to the Court of Cassation, the liability incurred by condominium owners for damages arising from the neglect of common areas is of an extracontractual nature. This means that the rules governing real obligations, which bind condominium owners by virtue of their ownership of fractional shares and relate, for example, to the payment of condominium expenses, do not apply. Instead, reference is made to the general rules on civil liability, particularly Article 2043 of the Civil Code, which establishes the principle of "neminem laedere" (do not harm anyone), and Article 2051 of the Civil Code, concerning damage caused by things in custody. This approach had already been reinforced by the United Sections of the Court of Cassation with judgment No. 9449 of 2016, which had clarified the nature of the condominium's liability for damages arising from the custody of common areas.

In matters of condominiums, the owner of an apartment damaged by a common area assumes the position of a third party who suffers damage due to the neglected maintenance of common areas, which implies the arising, on the part of the condominium owners, of an extracontractual liability, excluding the applicability of the discipline of real obligations; consequently, the buyer of a property within a condominium is not liable for compensation if the damaging event occurred before their purchase, as the owner of the property unit at the time of the event must be held responsible for the damage.

This maxim is the core of the ruling. It clarifies that the injured condominium owner is considered a "third party" to the condominium, not because they are an outsider, but because the damage suffered does not stem from a contractual breach or a violation of internal condominium rules, but rather from a wrongful act that falls within the scope of tortious (or extracontractual) liability. The most significant consequence of this qualification is that the liability for compensation for damages does not automatically transfer with the ownership of the property.

The Buyer and Pre-existing Damages: Who Pays?

The real novelty, or rather, the crystallization of a principle with significant practical impact, concerns the position of a property buyer. Order No. 16435/2025 unequivocally states that "the buyer of a property within a condominium is not liable for compensation if the damaging event occurred before their purchase, as the owner of the property unit at the time of the event must be held responsible for the damage."

This principle is of extreme importance. If the liability were of a real nature (i.e., tied to the ownership of the property), the obligation to compensate for damages would transfer with the property, burdening the new owner. Instead, since the liability is extracontractual, it is personal and arises in the party who was the owner (and therefore custodian of the common areas) at the time the damaging event occurred. This contrasts, for example, with Article 63 of the Implementing Provisions of the Civil Code, which provides for the buyer's joint and several liability for condominium contributions not paid by the seller in the current year and the preceding one, but this provision refers to "expenses" and not "damages."

The practical implications are manifold:

• **For the Buyer:** Greater protection. They will not have to bear compensation for damages that occurred before their entry into the condominium, provided the damaging event predates the purchase. However, thorough due diligence before purchasing is always recommended.
• **For the Seller:** They must be aware that their liability for damages from neglected maintenance of common areas, which occurred during the period they were the owner, persists even after the sale of the property.
• **For the Condominium/Administrator:** It is crucial to precisely identify the moment the damage occurred to determine the responsible parties. Communication and documentation are essential.

Conclusions: Legal Certainty and Prudence in Purchases

Order No. 16435 of 2025 of the Court of Cassation represents a firm point in the landscape of condominium law, consolidating the jurisprudential trend on the extracontractual nature of liability for damages from neglected maintenance of common areas. This clarity benefits all condominium stakeholders, as it reduces uncertainties and potential disputes related to property transfer.

For prospective buyers, the message is clear: liability for pre-existing damages does not transfer. However, it is always good practice to obtain accurate information about the building's condition and any ongoing litigation, perhaps by requesting a report from the administrator, to avoid unpleasant surprises. For sellers, it is a reminder to maintain common areas in good working order and to promptly address any issues, as their liability for wrongful acts does not cease with the transfer of the property. The Law Firm is available for clarifications and assistance in these complex dynamics.