Series: Condominium Property in Costa Rica · Part 3 of 5

Condominium Fees: What Is Paid, How the Fee Is Set, and How It Is Collected

What each unit owner pays, how the fee is approved, how it is collected today under Article 20 of Law 7933, and what defenses a delinquent owner has.

By Dowglas Dayán Murillo Murillo October 19, 2026 45 min read Law reviewed as of October 19, 2026

Contents

What is paid, and why every owner pays it
How the fee is set
The Article 20 guarantee over the unit
How the guarantee ranks against the bank that financed the purchase
The certified public accountant’s certification
How fees are collected in the courts today
Selling or buying a unit with overdue fees
How long the condominium has to collect
What the condominium may not do to collect
Defenses and payment arrangements for those who owe
What to do with all this

Translated from the Spanish original. If there is any discrepancy between the two versions, the Spanish text prevails. Read the original in Spanish.

Three years ago, a family bought a house in a horizontal condominium in Heredia. One of their two incomes disappeared, and the maintenance fee was the first thing they stopped paying: it seemed the least urgent debt, since no one was going to cut off their electricity or take their car over it. In the ninth month they were served with court papers. The condominium was asking for the house to be sold at judicial auction (remate) over a debt that was only a fraction of its value. A few miles away, in a San José apartment building, the opposite happened: the administrator sued an owner who was more than a year behind on fees, and the court dismissed the claim outright because the accountant’s certification did not say when the delinquency began. And at a beach condominium in Guanacaste, the board of directors is debating whether it can cut off the water to the owner of a villa who shows up only in high season and never pays. All three situations share a root: the condominium fee is a debt backed by a very strong guarantee and governed by collection rules that must be understood precisely, whether you manage the condominium or owe it money. This study explains what is paid and how the fee is set, what guarantee the condominium holds over each unit, how fees are collected in the courts today, what happens when a unit with unpaid fees is sold, how long the condominium has to collect, what the condominium may not do to pressure payment, and what defenses and options are available to an owner who has fallen behind.

What is paid, and why every owner pays it

The starting point is the Condominium Property Regulatory Law (Ley Reguladora de la Propiedad en Condominio), Law 7933. Whoever buys a unit (finca filial), meaning the apartment, house, commercial space or lot that belongs exclusively to them within the condominium, also buys an inseparable share of the common property: the land, internal roads, roofs, installations, the pool or the clubhouse. That co-ownership carries a burden that cannot be shed.

The duty to contribute does not depend on use

The law states that owners “shall be obligated to pay the costs of administration, upkeep and operation of the common services and property,” and adds that waiving the use of the common areas, whether expressly or tacitly, does not release the unit owner from paying maintenance fees “nor from any obligation arising under the regime” (Article 13 of Law 7933). The ground-floor owner who never takes the elevator, the older resident who never goes down to the pool, and the investor who lives abroad all pay the same, unless the bylaws allocate a particular expense differently. The same law closes another door: owners on the first floor and on the top floor do not, for that reason alone, have more rights than anyone else (Article 17 of Law 7933). The fee is not the price of a service bought according to consumption; it is each owner’s contribution to maintaining something they own in common with the others.

The obligation belongs to the owner, not to whoever lives in the unit. The law requires it of the owner “directly, even if they do not personally occupy the property” (Article 22 of Law 7933). If the unit is rented, the owner may agree with the tenant that the tenant will pay the fees, and the General Law on Urban and Suburban Leases (Ley General de Arrendamientos Urbanos y Suburbanos), Law 7527, allows that payment to be treated as part of the rent (Article 25 of Law 7527). That agreement binds the two of them; as far as the condominium is concerned, the owner remains liable. The details of that relationship are covered in the study Renting in a Condominium.

The current Executive Regulations to the law, Executive Decree 45214-MIVAH-MEIC-TUR, in force since January 19, 2026, which repealed Decree 32303 of 2005, assume that no one buys blind: a buyer of a unit is deemed to “know and accept” the condominium’s bylaws and “the amount and frequency of the condominium fee” (Article 86 of Decree 45214). In social-interest housing condominiums, moreover, the amount of the fee must be disclosed to the beneficiaries in advance and accepted by them (Article 87 of Decree 45214).

Common expenses and expenses of each unit

The law lists the common expenses (gastos comunes) (Article 19 of Law 7933). They are the taxes, fees and charges affecting the common property; the insurance premiums the bylaws provide for; the costs of administering, maintaining, repairing and cleaning the common areas; the cost of improvements authorized by the assembly; and any others the assembly authorizes or the bylaws classify as common. The same article states that the offices that collect taxes and fees must keep a separate account for each unit. That is why the property tax on your apartment is billed to you, not to the condominium.

Not everything spent on the building is a common expense. The upkeep of floor slabs, floors, walls and other shared dividing elements is paid by the owners of the affected units, and each owner pays for the flooring or paving of their own unit (Article 18 of Law 7933). If the slab between two apartments needs repair, those two neighbors pay for it, not the whole community. The same goes for everything inside each unit.

Insurance is not mandatory across the board: the premium is a common expense in the amount and of the type “that the condominium bylaws establish” (Article 19(b) of Law 7933). But the law assumes insurance exists when it regulates reconstruction, because it earmarks the proceeds for rebuilding and, if they fall short, requires everyone to contribute in the proportion set in the deed (Article 37 of Law 7933). A condominium without insurance exposes its owners to paying for an entire reconstruction through special assessments. In condominiums built on concessions, such as those in the maritime-terrestrial zone, there is also the concession fee for the common area, a “shared fee” proportional to each owner’s co-ownership share (Article 45 of Decree 45214).

Regular fees, special assessments and improvements

The law does not use the words “regular” and “special,” but the distinction follows from its structure. The regular fee funds the annual budget; the special assessment covers an expense the budget did not anticipate, such as a major repair or an improvement. For improvements, the law sets special majorities: necessary improvements, which prevent damage or loss, are approved by votes representing a majority of the condominium’s value; useful improvements, which increase value or comfort, by votes representing two-thirds of that value (Article 14 of Law 7933). Purely luxury improvements are not addressed; in our view, if they involve acquiring new common property or changing the use of existing common property, they require the two-thirds of the total value that the law demands for those cases (Article 27(b)(3) of Law 7933).

If a special assessment was approved without the required majority, the unit owner may challenge it, but within a strict deadline. An owner in a vertical condominium in Alajuela challenged a fee increase and a special assessment to remodel the pools five days after the three months allowed by law had run out, and the court declared her claim legally untenable (improponible) because the statutory forfeiture period (caducidad) had expired (Civil and Labor Court of Appeals of Alajuela, decision 105-2026).

How the fee is set

Knowing what is paid does not tell you how much each owner owes or who decides. The answer is spread across the law, its Executive Regulations, and each condominium’s own internal rules, which the law calls the condominium bylaws (Reglamento de Condominio y Administración) and which are included in the deed of establishment.

The annual budget and the assembly resolution

The Owners’ Assembly (Asamblea de Condóminos) meets at least once a year (Article 24 of Law 7933), and at that annual meeting it approves “the budget of expenses for the year” and indicates “the means of contributing the funds needed to cover it”; whatever it resolves “binds all owners” (Article 26 of Law 7933). Decree 45214 is more direct: the assembly “shall approve the collection of a condominium fee to pay the common expenses” (Article 87 of Decree 45214).

The fee, then, arises from an assembly resolution, not from a decision of the condominium administrator or the board of directors, except for any specific power the bylaws give them within the approved budget. If the law does not require a special majority, that resolution is adopted by votes of owners representing a majority of the condominium’s value (Article 27(c) of Law 7933). Whether that majority must be reached over the total value even at a second call is a point on which the courts disagree: one San José court annulled an assembly held on second call with 26.47% of the value (Second Civil Court of Appeals of San José, decision 215-2024), while the Heredia court raised the question without resolving it (Civil and Labor Court of Appeals of Heredia, decision 195-2025). The subject is developed in the study Who Decides in a Condominium; for collection purposes, it is enough to know that a fee approved at an assembly of doubtful validity is open to challenge.

How the fee is divided among the units

The law does not say how the budget is divided among the units. It leaves that task to the bylaws, which must regulate “owners’ contributions to common expenses” (Article 33(b) of Law 7933). The most common approach is to allocate according to the percentage the deed assigns to each unit, but the bylaws may use floor area, an equal fee per unit, or special charges for those who use limited common areas (restricted use), such as a parking space or terrace assigned to certain units.

Arturo Pacheco Murillo, in the 2006 book by the Chair of Property Law (Cátedra de Derechos Reales) at the University of Costa Rica, assumed that contributions were set according to the value of each unit. The current law does not bear this out: it uses value to count votes (Article 24 of Law 7933), measures co-ownership by area (Article 9), and leaves the allocation of fees to the bylaws; only for reconstruction does it require contributions in the proportion set in the deed (Article 37). Before arguing over whether a fee is correctly calculated, then, you have to read the bylaws of the specific condominium.

Interest and late charges

Late payment accrues interest. The rate is set by the bylaws or by an assembly resolution. If none was set, the legal interest rate defined in Article 1163 of the Civil Code applies, and in the event of default, interest is computed “at the same rate as that accrued upon maturity, except as otherwise provided by agreement on the matter” (Article 1164 of the Civil Code). The applicable rate changes over time; what must be checked in each case is where the rate being charged comes from.

Many bylaws call a monthly percentage on the overdue fee a “fine” or a “surcharge.” The label does not change what it is. In an obligation to pay money, the Civil Code says, damages “always and exclusively consist of the payment of interest” (Article 706 of the Civil Code). On that basis, the First Civil Court (Tribunal Primero Civil) classified a 10% monthly surcharge in the bylaws of an industrial condominium as interest rather than a penalty clause, because what had been agreed was not a fixed, single sum but a percentage that grew every month (First Civil Court, decision 823-2005). Such surcharges therefore follow the rules for interest, including the statute of limitations (prescripción). The model bylaws that circulated at the start of the century, such as those reproduced in the 2006 book, provided for monthly surcharges of 2% and 5%, and many bylaws still carry them. The 2005 decision did not examine whether the rate was abusive, because no proper defense had been raised, and left that question open; in our view, a disproportionate surcharge is open to challenge, and it is better to revisit it in the assembly before a judge does.

The Article 20 guarantee over the unit

So far the fee looks like just another civil debt. What sets it apart is the guarantee the law gives the condominium over the unit itself, which explains why a small debt can end in a judicial auction.

What the law says

Article 20 of Law 7933, as worded by Law 8278 of 2002, has two paragraphs. The first states that the unit “shall be encumbered, as security, on a preferential basis and from its origin, for the nonperformance of the monetary obligations the owner may come to have with the condominium.” The second states that unpaid common-expense fees, “as well as the fines and interest they generate, shall constitute a mortgage lien on the unit, preceded only by the lien for the property tax,” and that a certified public accountant (contador público autorizado, CPA) shall issue the certification of those sums, which “shall constitute an enforceable mortgage instrument.”

Those lines contain three ideas. A statutory lien (gravamen hipotecario), a mortgage-like lien that does not arise from a contract signed by the owner, as a bank mortgage does, but from the law, and that exists from the moment the unit exists. A priority: that lien yields only to the property tax. And an enforceable instrument (título ejecutivo), meaning a document that is enough to start forced collection without a prior lawsuit to establish the debt.

A history in three stages

The original 1999 text said something different about the instrument: the certification was issued by the administrator and, “countersigned by a certified public accountant,” was an enforceable mortgage instrument. On a referral from a San José civil court, the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) struck down that phrase as unconstitutional, because the administrator is a private party, and giving them the power to certify with enforceable effect violated the unit owner’s rights to equality and to a defense (Constitutional Chamber, decision 7156-2000). It did not, however, strike down the encumbrance on the unit or the statutory lien.

For a time, many considered the guarantee dead. Henry Campos Vargas, in the 2006 book by the Chair of Property Law at the University of Costa Rica, devoted an essay to proving the opposite, based on the “fundamental distinction between a property right and procedure”: the Chamber had struck down the procedure for creating the instrument, not the condominium’s right over the unit, and the statutory lien survived even if it had to be collected by slower means. The essay must be read in light of its date: it was written shortly after the 2000 decision and before the 2002 amendment, even though the book was reprinted in 2006.

History proved him right. The courts went on recognizing the statutory lien, although at first they required it to be collected through a simple executory action, without an immediate auction, because it was a statutory lien “without waiver of procedural steps”; even so, they accepted that the property was liable “with priority and as against any owner” (First Civil Court, decision 1309-2003; Second Civil Court (Tribunal Segundo Civil), decision 170-2004). Law 8278 of 2002 restored the certification’s enforceable force, but placed it in the hands of a certified public accountant. The Constitutional Chamber upheld the new text: the accountant is a third party vested with public faith, answers for what they certify, and the debtor can object in the proceedings (Constitutional Chamber, decision 12004-2002). Years later it rejected a constitutional challenge against the provision and added an argument that applies to every buyer: anyone who acquires in a condominium knows from the outset that they must pay the common expenses (Constitutional Chamber, decision 11273-2007). The last stage was completed by procedural law, first with the Judicial Collection Law (Ley de Cobro Judicial) of 2007, now repealed, and then with the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil), Law 9342, in force since 2018: mortgages “that by law do not require registration have the same effect” as registered ones for purposes of enforcement (Article 166 of the Civil Procedure Code).

Campos’s thesis thus stands confirmed in substance and superseded in procedure. The property right survived and is now enforced like any mortgage; the routes he proposed for collecting without an enforceable instrument, such as an ordinary lawsuit declaring the statutory lien and ordering the auction, are no longer the normal path, although they may still be useful when the condominium lacks a suitable certification. And his call for a procedure that respected the unit owner’s right of defense was answered by the legislature in two pieces: the instrument is created by a third party vested with public faith, and the debtor has an objection procedure within the case.

What the guarantee covers and whether it must be registered

The two paragraphs of Article 20 do not have the same scope. The first encumbers the unit for “the monetary obligations the owner may come to have with the condominium,” without distinction; the second turns into a statutory lien, collectible with the accountant’s certification, the unpaid fees, “as well as the fines and interest they generate.” Interest and surcharges for late fees are covered beyond doubt. The hard question concerns fines the assembly imposes for violations of the bylaws, such as repeated noise or unauthorized construction. The wording does not exclude them: a final fine is a monetary obligation to the condominium, and the second paragraph names “fines” without qualification.

In our view, however, the phrase “they generate” ties those fines to the fees, that is, to late-payment charges, and not to conduct sanctions, which arise from a violation and which Article 23 requires to be pursued through summary proceedings (proceso sumario). This reading is supported by the fact that the certifications accepted by the courts itemize “fines” as a monthly percentage on the overdue fee (First Civil Court of Appeals of San José, decision 772-2023). It is a debatable reading, with no case law settling it, and it yields a practical recommendation: do not include conduct fines in the accountant’s certification.

Another question is whether the lien must be recorded in the Real Property Registry (Registro Inmobiliario) to be valid. In our view it need not be, for three reasons: the law makes it arise “from its origin” without requiring registration; the Civil Procedure Code gives effect to mortgages that by law do not require registration (Article 166) and, for payment-order proceedings (proceso monitorio), recognizes “unregistered pledges and mortgages” as enforceable instruments (Article 111.2.6 of the Civil Procedure Code); and notice is provided by the law itself, because everyone who buys a unit knows it is encumbered. This is a thesis, not a settled judicial position: none of the decisions we have read addresses the point head-on; the dissenting opinion discussed in the next section states that registration is not necessary, while the majority opinion in the same case relied instead on what the Registry shows. What does matter, once collection begins, is that the lawsuit be annotated in the Registry, which in foreclosure proceedings (ejecución hipotecaria) the court orders on its own motion (Article 167 of the Civil Procedure Code).

How the guarantee ranks against the bank that financed the purchase

That the guarantee exists without registration says nothing about how much it is worth when it competes with another. Many units are bought with a mortgage loan registered before the owner misses the first fee, and when the owner defaults on both, the question is unavoidable: if the unit is auctioned, who gets paid first? The law seems to answer plainly, since it says the condominium’s lien is “preceded only” by the property tax. The courts, however, have not read that phrase in a single way, and we have not found a decision of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court (Sala Primera) that resolves the debate.

The pursuit thesis: the bank is paid first

In a foreclosure brought by a bank holding a first mortgage on a unit in a vertical condominium in San José, the condominium appeared in the case with its statutory lien, and the debtor asked that the auction’s opening bid be the one set for the senior creditor, which in the debtor’s view was the condominium. The question was no small matter, because when the property bears several liens the opening bid is “the one established for the matured senior-ranking security” (Article 157.3 of the Civil Procedure Code): deciding the opening bid meant deciding who goes first. The court’s majority confirmed that the opening bid was the one for the bank’s mortgage. It reasoned that the Registry shows the bank in first position and that the statutory lien’s priority “consists in surviving regardless of who holds title to the unit”: if the condominium is not paid from the auction proceeds, it can collect afterward from the new owner (First Civil Court of Appeals of San José, decision 907-2025, majority opinion).

In 2024, the Alajuela court had ruled the same way in the case of a bank that was awarded three units at auction, when the condominium asked to be paid its statement of account first. It held that the statutory lien “does not constitute a privilege of priority payment, but rather entails a preference of pursuit over the real property” that generates the debt, and that if the auction does not bring enough to pay it, the lien survives against the new titleholder (Civil and Labor Court of Appeals of Alajuela, decision 45-2024). On this reading, “preferential” does not mean being paid before the bank, but being able to pursue the unit in the hands of whoever owns it.

The payment-priority thesis: the condominium is paid first

The opposite reading is supported by an earlier precedent from the same court. In 2021, a condominium was foreclosing its statutory lien on a unit, and the bank, as first-ranking creditor, and another creditor of second rank appeared in the proceeding. When the bank reported that its borrower was also in default, the trial court changed the opening bid and used the one set in the bank’s mortgage contract, considering it superior. The court of appeals annulled that decision and ordered the auction to proceed on the condominium’s opening bid. It held that Article 20 not only gives the fee a mortgage-like lien that needs no registration but “expressly confers on it priority of payment from its origin,” so that when contractual creditors and the condominium compete in the same foreclosure, “the condominium’s statutory lien must be given priority over the contractual one.” It gave two reasons: as a rule, the statutory lien exists before the loan, and the bank lends knowing that the unit bears it; and the legislature chose to place the community’s interest in recovering what each unit owes ahead of the lender’s. It also rejected the idea that this priority amounts only to the right to pursue the unit, because those are two different rights (First Civil Court of Appeals of San José, decision 1321-2021). The decision set out its own scope: if only the bank goes to the auction, the condominium’s lien, which does not appear in the Registry, follows the unit, and whoever acquires it takes it subject to that lien.

That is the thesis the dissent in decision 907-2025 took up again. The dissenting judge argued that when a contractual creditor and a statutory one compete, “the Law determined that priority belongs to the statutory lien,” and added that the bank knew or should have known of the lien, which arises with the unit and is set out in the law. The sequence of decisions shows how unsettled the point is: the same court that gave the condominium priority in 2021 denied it by majority in 2025, with the 2024 Alajuela decision in between.

An open question, and how to act in the meantime

Both readings have serious support, and until the First Chamber rules, the question will remain open. In favor of payment priority is the wording of Article 20: the first paragraph already says the unit is encumbered “from its origin,” and the second places the condominium’s lien behind a single one, the property tax, which seems to refer to the ranking among creditors and not merely to the right to pursue the unit. In favor of pursuit is the reliability of the Registry: a lender with a first mortgage of record relies on what the Registry discloses, and a debt that does not appear there and grows every month would upset that calculation after the loan was made. This second reading, moreover, does not leave the condominium unprotected, because its guarantee survives the auction and can be enforced against the new owner. For the reader, the consequence is concrete: the outcome of the same dispute may depend on which court hears it, and planning must keep both scenarios in view.

That uncertainty affects everyone involved. A condominium that learns of an auction brought by the bank should appear in the case, file its certified statement of account, and claim whatever priority it believes it has: all creditors with security interests must collect in the proceeding in which the auction notice was first published (Article 157.1 of the Civil Procedure Code), and the condominium, which does not appear in the Registry, will not be notified the way registered creditors are. Anyone who buys a unit at auction should assume the overdue fees may follow it: the pursuit thesis holds so, and so does decision 1321-2021 for an auction the condominium did not join, although we know of no judgment that has ordered an auction purchaser to pay them. And the mortgage lender has an interest in making sure the fees are kept current, because under the payment-priority thesis that debt would come ahead of its own. Henry Campos, in his other essay in the 2006 book, pointed to the bank’s interest in paying the debtor’s fees and being subrogated to the right to collect them, to protect its security; the idea still holds, and the Civil Code grants subrogation by operation of law to a creditor who pays another creditor with a better right (Article 790 of the Civil Code). Whether the condominium is that creditor with a better right is, precisely, what is in dispute.

The certified public accountant’s certification

The guarantee is worth little without a sound instrument. In the dismissals of fee-collection lawsuits we have studied, the problem was almost never that the debt did not exist, but that the certification did not say enough. The law does not prescribe its content, and the courts have had to fill that silence.

What the courts require

The general rule was laid down by the First Civil Court of Appeals of San José when it upheld the outright dismissal of a claim: even though Article 20 sets no requirements, the certification must safeguard the right of defense and contain “a specific breakdown of the various items making up the balance claimed”; certifying a balance as of a certain date is not enough (First Civil Court of Appeals of San José, decision 1548-2024). In another case, the same court ordered the claim to proceed because the certification did set out, month by month, “the period being collected, the amount charged, the items it includes, the interest and fine rates, as well as the date of the last payment,” and it clarified that the governing provision is Article 20 of Law 7933 and not Article 611 of the Commercial Code, which regulates a different accountant’s certification (First Civil Court of Appeals of San José, decision 772-2023). The table brings together what, according to those and other rulings, the certification must contain.

What must be stated	Why	Source
That it is issued by a certified public accountant	The accountant is the person the law empowers; the administrator’s certification was struck down	Article 20 of Law 7933; Constitutional Chamber, decisions 7156-2000 and 12004-2002
A breakdown of each item: fees, fines and interest, period by period	A lump-sum balance is not enough	First Civil Court of Appeals, decisions 1548-2024 and 772-2023
The date the delinquency began and the date of the last payment	The debtor must be able to verify from when they are being charged	Decisions 1548-2024 and 772-2023
The interest period for each item, from date to date	Without it, the calculation cannot be checked	Decision 1548-2024
The interest rate and type (regular or default) for each period	The assembly may change the fee and the rate; the debtor does not have to work it out	Civil and Labor Court of Appeals of Alajuela, decision 637-2022
That the fees being collected are for a unit subject to the condominium regime	Outside the regime there is no enforceable instrument	Civil and Labor Court of Appeals of Heredia, decision 656-2024

Mistakes that lose the case

The first is certifying a balance without a breakdown or without dates. Decision 1548-2024 adds a consequence many people overlook: what is missing from the certification cannot be supplied in the complaint, and because the defect lies in the instrument, the court is not required to give the plaintiff a chance to cure it. The claim is dismissed and the process must start over.

The second is leaving out the rate. A horizontal condominium in Alajuela submitted a certification that broke down fees, fines and interest by period without stating the rate applied, and the court confirmed that the claim was legally untenable: it is not for the debtor “to deduce or extract from the document” the percentage being charged. The court also noted that the certification was signed by the same professional who served as the condominium’s attorney and accountant (Civil and Labor Court of Appeals of Alajuela, decision 637-2022). It did not decide the case on that basis, but the situation is best avoided: the strength of the instrument rests on its being issued by a third party.

The third is using the instrument where there is no condominium. Many gated residential developments with a guardhouse charge “maintenance fees” under the articles of a corporation or an association and believe they have the same guarantee. They do not: enforceable instruments exist only by law, and in a project not subject to the condominium regime “these are not condominium fees,” and the instrument cannot be created by analogy (Civil and Labor Court of Appeals of Heredia, decision 656-2024).

Other mistakes have not yet been described in a judgment, but the law makes it possible to anticipate them. In our view, the certification should identify the unit by its property registration number and the owner for the periods being collected; it should be traceable to the assembly resolution that approved the fee and the rate, even though no court has required this as a formal element; and it should not include time-barred periods or mix sanction fines with fees. The plaintiff is the condominium, represented by a condominium administrator with a current appointment, who holds judicial representation and the actions needed to perform their duties without an assembly resolution for each collection, unless the bylaws provide otherwise (Article 29 of Law 7933 and Article 88 of Decree 45214). And if the bylaws, copied from an old template, say that the administrator certifies the debt with an accountant’s countersignature, that clause reproduces what the Chamber struck down in 2000 and is useless as an instrument.

How fees are collected in the courts today

With a well-prepared instrument, the paths to collection are clear. First, though, an error that appears in many texts and bylaws must be cleared up: the Judicial Collection Law, Law 8624, which governed mortgage foreclosure and payment-order proceedings between 2008 and 2018, has been repealed (Article 183.2 of the Civil Procedure Code). The current procedures are in the Civil Procedure Code, and the judgments of recent years show that the accountant’s certification is handled as a foreclosure before the collection courts.

Before filing suit

The law does not require the condominium to sue over the first late fee, and judicial collection costs both sides money and time. A well-run administration sends periodic statements of account, makes a written, verifiable demand for payment when the delinquency begins, offers a payment arrangement, and only then sues. That written demand is not a courtesy, because the statute of limitations is interrupted “by any judicial or extrajudicial step to collect the debt” (Article 879 of the Civil Code). In social-interest housing condominiums there is a step that cannot be skipped: when fees go unpaid, the administrator “shall assess the family’s economic situation” before deciding how to proceed (Article 87 of Decree 45214). The provision does not prohibit collection, but it requires a prior assessment that should be documented.

Foreclosure proceedings

This is the natural route for enforcing the guarantee over the unit. The complaint must be accompanied by the documents on which the foreclosure is based (Article 167 of the Civil Procedure Code): the accountant’s certification, the Registry certification for the unit, and the certificate of the administrator’s authority to act (personería). Procedural law requires suing “the debtor and the owner who consented to the lien”; with a statutory lien no one consented to it, and in our view the suit should name the current owner and, if that is a different person, also whoever owned the unit when the debt arose. The point matters because, if a defendant is missing, the court orders the complaint to be completed within five days and, if that is not done, declares the foreclosure inadmissible. When it admits the complaint, the court orders on its own motion that it be annotated in the Registry (Article 167 of the Civil Procedure Code).

The defendant has five days to object and may raise only lack of enforceability, payment, or the statute of limitations; the objection does not stay the auction, but the auction is not approved until the objection is rejected (Article 168 of the Civil Procedure Code). The unit is put up for auction in three rounds, and the proceeds are applied to court costs, to storage and maintenance expenses, and then to interest and principal according to the order of priority (Articles 157 and 164 of the Civil Procedure Code). If the proceeds fall short, the court, at a party’s request, sets the deficiency balance and, once that ruling is final, the condominium may pursue the debtor’s other assets in the same case file (Article 170 of the Civil Procedure Code).

Here the debate over ranking resurfaces. An auction brought by the first-position creditor is ordered free of liens; one brought by a junior creditor is ordered subject to the earlier liens that have not yet matured, although if those earlier debts are already due, it is also ordered free of liens and the price is distributed according to the ranking of the claims (Article 157.4 of the Civil Procedure Code). In our view, under the pursuit thesis, if the condominium forecloses on a unit with a bank mortgage in good standing, the auction would be held subject to that mortgage, which may scare off bidders, and if the bank’s mortgage is already due, the unit would be sold free of liens but the bank would be paid first; under the payment-priority thesis, the condominium forecloses in first position and the unit is sold free of liens. This is a point that must be studied in each case before choosing the route.

Payment-order proceedings

The other route is the monetary payment-order proceeding, designed to collect money obligations that are “liquidated and due, based on public or private documents, whether or not enforceable” (Article 110.1.1 of the Civil Procedure Code). The accountant’s certification is an enforceable instrument because enforceable instruments include “all kinds of documents that, under special laws, have enforceable force” (Article 111.2.7 of the Civil Procedure Code), and, like every document on which a payment-order proceeding is based, it must be filed in the original or in a signed copy (Article 111.1 of the Civil Procedure Code). With it, the court issues an order to pay the principal, interest and costs and, if the condominium so requests, orders at the same time an attachment for the principal and the liquidated interest plus 50% for future interest and costs (Article 111.3 of the Civil Procedure Code). That attachment remains in place even if the debtor objects (Article 110.2 of the Civil Procedure Code).

We have not found judgments on the collection of fees by this route, so what follows is the firm’s own view. The payment-order proceeding produces a personal judgment and allows other assets of the debtor to be attached, but it does not by itself give effect to the priority over the unit. It may be advisable when the unit carries a large bank mortgage and an auction would be unattractive, or when the debtor has other assets that are easy to attach. If the priority must later be asserted against other creditors, the condominium will have to appear in the auction or file a third-party priority claim (tercería de mejor derecho), which is the proper action when one claims “to have priority for payment” out of the proceeds of what was attached (Article 172 of the Civil Procedure Code). That claim poses a difficulty for the condominium: for registrable property, it must be accompanied, on pain of outright dismissal, by the document proving that the right is registered or that registration is in process (Article 173.1 of the Civil Procedure Code), and the statutory lien is not registered. For that reason, in our view, the safest way to assert priority is to appear in the auction in time, before a final ruling orders payment to other creditors (Article 173.2 of the Civil Procedure Code). The table compares the two routes.

	Foreclosure proceedings	Monetary payment-order proceedings
Rules	Articles 166 to 171 of the Civil Procedure Code	Articles 110 and 111 of the Civil Procedure Code
What it pursues	The unit, with the Article 20 guarantee	A personal judgment and the attachment of the debtor’s assets
First measure	Annotation of the complaint in the Registry, on the court’s own motion	Order to pay and, if requested, attachment for principal and liquidated interest plus 50%
Debtor’s objection	Lack of enforceability, payment, or statute of limitations, within five days	Falsity of the document, lack of enforceability, payment proven in writing, or statute of limitations, within five days
If there is no objection or it is rejected	Auction; if the proceeds fall short, a deficiency balance against other assets in the same case file	The payment order is enforced without further proceedings, against the attached assets

Sanction fines take a different route

Fines the assembly imposes for violations of the bylaws are another matter. The law states that the assembly imposes those sanctions “after due process has been followed,” that the bylaws must provide for their regime, and that claims for them “shall be heard through summary proceedings” (Article 23 of Law 7933), which today are those of Article 103 of the Civil Procedure Code. In our view, including them in the Article 20 certification as if they were fees puts the entire collection at risk. A court upheld the revocation of fines that a condominium had been charging to an owner’s account for the conduct of her tenant, without stating the offense, the rule violated, or the evidence, because there had not been even “a brief, summary investigation with notice of the charges” (Second Civil Court of Appeals of San José, decision 513-2025). The sanctions regime is explained in the study Living in a Condominium.

Selling or buying a unit with overdue fees

Collection is not always directed against the person who ran up the debt, because a fee debt does not disappear when the unit changes hands. Whoever sells or transfers it “by any title” (sale, gift, transfer in lieu of payment, contribution to a company) must present to the notary public (civil-law notary) a certification, issued by the administrator, that they are current on fees. If they are in arrears, the buyer “shall be deemed a joint and several debtor for the certified amount,” with the right to recover from the seller whatever they have to pay for that reason (Article 21 of Law 7933). This statement from the administrator is different from the accountant’s certification that serves as an enforceable instrument.

The First Chamber applied the provision in the case of a unit in a Heredia condominium that a developer sold with overdue fees: the buyer is jointly and severally liable to the condominium for the fees the former owner did not pay, has a right of recovery against the seller, and is responsible for the fees accruing after the transfer. It ordered the developer to reimburse the fees and fines from before the transfer (First Chamber, ruling 1491-2024). The Executive Regulations add that obligations to the condominium “shall be transferred automatically” upon conveyance (Article 63 of Decree 45214).

Article 21 does not prohibit selling a unit with debts: it only discloses the debt and makes the buyer jointly and severally liable, as the Alajuela court held when it rejected the notion that a transfer could not be recorded without the statement that fees were current (Civil and Labor Court of Appeals of Alajuela, decision 45-2024). Nor does it say what happens if no one presents the certification. In our view, personal joint and several liability applies for the certified amount, but even without a certification the unit remains encumbered under Article 20, so an unwary buyer may end up facing foreclosure on what they bought.

The advice is simple. If you are buying, demand the administrator’s certification before signing, ask the notary to refer to it in the deed, and, if there is a debt, agree that it will be paid out of the price at closing or that part of the price will be held back for that purpose. If you are selling, bring your fees up to date before you negotiate. If you are buying at auction, look into the statement of account before you bid. Everything else to check before buying is covered in the study Owning a Condominium Unit.

How long the condominium has to collect

Neither the guarantee over the unit nor the buyer’s joint and several liability lasts forever: the debt is extinguished if the condominium lets time pass without collecting it. Law 7933 sets no special limitations period, so the Civil Code applies, and we have found no case law stating which period governs condominium fees. What follows is the firm’s own view, with its risks.

The general rule is that “every right and its corresponding action prescribe in ten years,” except as otherwise provided by law (Article 868 of the Civil Code). Among the exceptions are two short periods for certain periodic payments: three years for “interest, rents, leases, pensions and annuities” when payment was stipulated by half-years or longer periods (Article 869.1 of the Civil Code), and one year when it was stipulated by periods shorter than half a year (Article 870.1 of the Civil Code), as monthly fees are.

In our view, each fee prescribes ten years after it falls due, because the period runs “from the day on which the obligation becomes enforceable” (Article 874 of the Civil Code). Fees do not fit the categories of the short periods: they are not the price for using someone else’s property, like rent or a lease payment, nor the yield on capital, like interest, nor a pension, but rather the owner’s contribution to maintaining their own common property, and exceptions to the ten-year rule should not be extended to cases the law does not name. The opposing argument carries weight: the rationale behind the short periods, keeping periodic debts from piling up unchecked, applies to fees as well. And for interest and surcharges the risk is greater, because the word “interest” does appear on the list. In 2005, the First Civil Court declared time-barred a condominium’s surcharges dating from more than one year before service of the complaint, after classifying them as interest, although the decision does not say what period or what article it applied: it only sets that cutoff date (First Civil Court, decision 823-2005).

The guarantee has no period of its own: the mortgage is extinguished with the principal obligation (Article 424 of the Civil Code), and once the principal action is time-barred, the accessory actions are as well (Article 867 of the Civil Code). Three rules complete the picture. The statute of limitations is interrupted by acknowledgment of the debt, by service of process, attachment or seizure duly notified (Article 876 of the Civil Code), and by any judicial or extrajudicial collection step (Article 879 of the Civil Code), and the interruption erases all the time that had run before (Article 878 of the Civil Code). If a debt subject to the short periods of one or three years is put in writing or becomes the subject of a judgment after falling due, it moves to the ordinary ten-year term (Article 873 of the Civil Code). And the judge does not apply the statute of limitations on their own initiative: a party who fails to raise it before the judgment becomes final tacitly waives it (Article 851 of the Civil Code), and in collection proceedings it is raised in the objection (Articles 111.4 and 168 of the Civil Procedure Code).

Administrations should not count on the ten years or let delinquencies pile up. And anyone who owes must understand that a demand letter, a partial payment, or a signed payment arrangement restarts the clock, so waiting for the debt to prescribe is rarely a realistic plan: the usual outcome is that the debt stays alive and keeps growing.

What the condominium may not do to collect

Judicial collection takes time, and at nearly every assembly the temptation arises to pressure the delinquent owner by other means: cutting off their water, not opening the gate for them, taking away their vote, forcing them out of the unit. The courts have clearly rejected some of these measures; others sit in a gray area that must be described without promising more than the judgments say.

Ordering the delinquent owner to vacate

Law 7933 allows the assembly to impose, as a sanction and with due process, an “obligation to vacate” on a unit owner who violates the prohibitions of the law or the bylaws (Article 23 of Law 7933). A San José condominium asked a judge to enforce an assembly resolution ordering the owner of two units who owed fees to vacate on that basis, and the court confirmed that the claim was legally untenable: Article 23 punishes violations of “prohibitions and limitations,” which are duties to refrain from doing something, whereas “the payment of fees is an obligation to give money”; collection has its own route under Article 20, analogy is prohibited in sanctions matters, and an assembly resolution cannot go beyond the law (Second Civil Court of Appeals of San José, decision 49-2026). Delinquency is collected; it is not punished with the loss of one’s home outside a foreclosure.

Cutting off water or other services

In many condominiums water arrives through a master meter, so the administration physically controls the valve. The Constitutional Chamber’s case law on cutting off delinquent owners has not been consistent. In 2013, in a vertical condominium in Alajuela that cut off water to a tenant’s apartment because the owner owed two fees, the Chamber expressly reversed its earlier position: only the entity responsible for the water supply may interrupt service; the condominium must collect through the mechanisms of the bylaws or of civil law, and it may not use water to pressure a tenant. It ordered the connection maintained and held the condominium liable for costs and damages (Constitutional Chamber, decision 2084-2013). That is the strongest support for an affected unit owner or tenant.

Later decisions, without discussing that reversal, again allowed the cutoff where there was an objective cause, notice, and an alternative water source nearby, in cases involving owners who did not live in the unit (Constitutional Chamber, decisions 9044-2016 and 7763-2017). The most recent decision we have read states that suspending water because of the unit owner’s delinquency “may be constitutionally valid, provided it does not entail an absolute deprivation of the resource”; in that case there was a common tap on the first floor. In the same decision, however, the Chamber ruled against the owner who was renting out the apartment for cutting off his tenant’s electricity while eviction proceedings (desahucio) were pending, because that service “cannot be left to the discretion of a private party as a means of pressure” (Constitutional Chamber, decision 13296-2026). For commercial premises and offices the Chamber grants no protection (Constitutional Chamber, decisions 2783-2001 and 24922-2025), and it often refers the dispute to the ordinary courts because it considers it a matter of legality rather than constitutionality (Constitutional Chamber, decisions 27626-2021 and 17877-2026).

Read as a whole, this case law says something narrower than many believe: that under certain conditions, the cutoff does not violate a fundamental right that can be protected through an amparo action. It does not say that the law authorizes the condominium to cut off service, and in our view the law does not: no owner “may be limited in the reasonable use and enjoyment of the common property” (Article 9 of Law 7933), the Executive Regulations prohibit undermining the independent use of each unit (Article 18 of Decree 45214), and the collection route the law provides is the judicial one (Article 20 of Law 7933). A cutoff can expose the condominium to civil liability, as happened in 2013, and it often punishes someone who owes nothing: the tenant who pays their rent. Our advice to administrations is not to do it.

Closing the gate or blocking access

The Chamber has distinguished between taking away a convenience and blocking passage. It has tolerated guards ceasing to open the gate and announce visitors for delinquent owners, as long as they can enter on their own and receive visitors, because that does not “in itself” injure a fundamental right (Constitutional Chamber, decisions 5413-2011 and 17385-2009). In another case it found that this measure was not arbitrary, but ordered the removal of obstacles for a person with a disability (Constitutional Chamber, decision 3253-2010). By contrast, when an industrial condominium in San José barred the vehicles of the delinquent owner of a warehouse and of her tenants from crossing the common areas while it pursued her in court, the Chamber ordered the ban lifted: it called the measure an “abusive mechanism” to force payment, tantamount to taking the law into one’s own hands (Constitutional Chamber, decision 13256-2004). The limit is clear: the condominium may not prevent an owner from reaching their unit. We have found no recent decisions revisiting the gate rulings, so whether they still hold is uncertain.

Taking away the vote in the assembly

Some bylaws strip a delinquent owner of the right to speak and vote. A court annulled a 2020 amendment that did so because it had been approved without the unanimity the law then required, without deciding whether the measure is valid in itself (Second Civil Court of Appeals of San José, decision 552-2023). In our view it is doubtful, because the law gives each owner a number of votes equal to their unit’s percentage (Article 24 of Law 7933) without making that conditional on payment, and it is best not to rely on it until there is a judicial ruling.

Defenses and payment arrangements for those who owe

This study is also written for those on the other side. Not paying is not a valid way to protest poor management: the debt grows, the cost is absorbed by the neighbors who do pay, and the ultimate risk is losing the unit. But a delinquent unit owner is not defenseless against a poorly handled collection, and can negotiate a reasonable way out.

The defenses the law recognizes

The first defense is to review the instrument. If you are served with a foreclosure or a payment-order proceeding, read the certification with this study’s table in hand: if it was not issued by a certified public accountant, or does not break down the items, the delinquency, the interest period or the rate, the obligation is not enforceable as it is being collected. That defense is not a permanent way out: a defective instrument does not erase the debt, the condominium can return with a corrected certification, and in the meantime interest keeps running. The deadline to object is five days (Articles 110.2 and 168 of the Civil Procedure Code), and only the grounds listed by law are admitted; once that deadline passes, the defenses are lost.

The second is payment. In payment-order proceedings, only “payment proven in writing” counts (Article 111.4 of the Civil Procedure Code): keep every receipt and every proof of payment. When paying, you may state which overdue fee the payment applies to and require that this be noted on the receipt (Article 779 of the Civil Code), although you may not apply it to principal before covering accrued interest (Article 780 of the Civil Code), and many bylaws require partial payments to be applied first to interest and fines. If the administration refuses to accept current fees, or always applies them to the old debt so that you never catch up, as happened to a tenant in a recent case (Constitutional Chamber, decision 17877-2026), the Civil Code allows payment to be deposited with the court (consignación) when the creditor refuses to accept it without justification (Article 797 of the Civil Code). The deposit has requirements, among them that it cover “the entire liquidated and due debt, with its interest” (Article 798 of the Civil Code). Whether that means the overdue debt must also be deposited is debatable, and you should get advice before using it.

The third is the statute of limitations, which must be raised in the objection because the judge does not apply it on their own initiative.

The fourth, challenging the resolution, is not a defense within the collection case but a separate action, with a strict deadline. If the fee, the increase or the special assessment was approved without the necessary majority or violates the bylaws, the claim must be brought “within three months after the resolution becomes final” through summary proceedings (Article 26 of Law 7933). The First Chamber has held that this period is a statutory forfeiture period and a matter of public policy, and endorsed the view that resolutions “are effective for all purposes from the moment they are adopted at the assembly itself” (First Chamber, ruling 1977-2020); the period runs even if the resolution was not communicated to you (Civil and Labor Court of Appeals of Alajuela, decision 105-2026). A provisional suspension of the resolution may also be requested (Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Code), although that provision requires the person seeking it to hold a minimum representation which, in our view, in a condominium equals 10% of the value; the point is explained in the study Who Decides in a Condominium. What should not be done is to let the three months go by and then try to contest the resolution once it is being collected: the objection in the foreclosure is not designed for that.

Other tools remain. The administrator must render accounts “to any unit owner who requests it” (Article 89 of Decree 45214), and you may ask for a detailed statement of account before paying or negotiating. If you are charged fines that no one notified you of or allowed you to contest, you can challenge them for lack of due process (Second Civil Court of Appeals of San José, decision 513-2025). And if you bought the unit with the previous owner’s debts, you can recover from that owner whatever you pay (Article 21 of Law 7933; First Chamber, ruling 1491-2024).

How to negotiate a payment arrangement

The best defense for someone who cannot pay is usually to negotiate before being sued: approach the administration early, explain the situation in writing, and propose a realistic plan that starts with paying current fees and pays down the old debt in amounts that can actually be met. An arrangement broken after two months leaves the debtor worse off.

The agreement should be in writing and state the total amount acknowledged, its breakdown among fees, interest and surcharges, the number and dates of the payments, what happens if one is late and, if a case is pending, how it will be ended and who pays the costs. If the debtor asks for interest or surcharges to be forgiven, the administrator must have the power to do so under the bylaws or an assembly resolution; in our view, forgiving part of the debt goes beyond ordinary acts of administration, and an arrangement signed without that power may later be challenged by other unit owners. In a social-interest housing condominium, the debtor may invoke the administrator’s duty to assess their economic situation (Article 87 of Decree 45214).

The debtor must know what they are signing. An arrangement acknowledges the debt, interrupts the statute of limitations (Article 876 of the Civil Code) and, executed as a written document after the obligation has fallen due, may move the interest to the ordinary ten-year period (Article 873 of the Civil Code). That is no reason not to negotiate, but it is a reason to review the statement of account before signing and not to acknowledge time-barred or miscalculated sums. Conciliation or mediation is also available: agreements that meet the requirements of the Law on Alternative Dispute Resolution and the Promotion of Social Peace (Ley sobre Resolución Alterna de Conflictos y Promoción de la Paz Social), Law 7727, have the force of res judicata and are immediately enforceable (Article 9 of Law 7727).

What to do with all this

The condominium fee is a debt backed by a guarantee that few civil debts enjoy. Every owner owes it even if they do not use the common areas; if it goes unpaid, the unit is liable from its origin, in our view without any need for registration, and a certified public accountant’s certification allows it to be enforced like a mortgage. Whether that guarantee is paid before or after the bank is a question the courts have not answered uniformly, and any planning, whether by the condominium, the debtor or the mortgage lender, must take both answers into account.

For those who manage a condominium, the lessons are practical. Approve the fee and the rate with the correct majority and in clear minutes. Demand payment in writing from the first missed fee and do not let years of delinquency pile up. Have the certification prepared by an independent accountant and require a complete breakdown, with delinquency dates, interest periods and rates. Choose the route that fits the case, appear in auctions brought by other creditors, and do not mix sanction fines with fees. And do not cut off services, block access, or try to force the delinquent owner out: those measures have no basis in the law and can cost more than the debt.

For those who owe, the lesson is just as concrete. The debt is not forgotten, it grows with interest, and it can end in the auction of your home. If you believe the fee is unlawful, challenge it within the three months the law allows; if you are being charged incorrectly, review the certification and raise your defenses within the five days; if you cannot pay, negotiate before you are sued, in writing and with the statement of account reviewed. And if you are buying or selling a unit, demand the administrator’s certification before signing.

If your situation calls for a specific analysis, whether to collect or to defend yourself, you can book a consultation with the firm.

Main statutes and sources

Law 7933, Condominium Property Regulatory Law (Ley Reguladora de la Propiedad en Condominio), current version of March 16, 2026 (SINALEVI).
Executive Decree 45214-MIVAH-MEIC-TUR, Executive Regulations to the Condominium Property Regulatory Law (Reglamento a la Ley Reguladora de la Propiedad en Condominio) (La Gaceta 198, Supplement 136, October 22, 2025; in force since January 19, 2026).
Law 8278 of May 2, 2002, amending Article 20 of Law 7933.
Law 9342, Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil), current version of March 25, 2026 (SINALEVI).
Civil Code (Código Civil), Law 30, current version of November 16, 2025 (SINALEVI).
Law 7527, General Law on Urban and Suburban Leases (Ley General de Arrendamientos Urbanos y Suburbanos), current version of October 7, 2022 (SINALEVI).
Law 7727, Law on Alternative Dispute Resolution and the Promotion of Social Peace (Ley sobre Resolución Alterna de Conflictos y Promoción de la Paz Social), of December 9, 1997, current version of September 18, 2024 (SINALEVI).
Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), decision 7156-2000, August 16, 2000.
Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), decision 2783-2001, April 5, 2001.
Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), decision 12004-2002, December 18, 2002.
Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), decision 13256-2004, November 23, 2004.
Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), decision 11273-2007, August 8, 2007.
Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), decision 17385-2009, November 17, 2009.
Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), decision 3253-2010, February 12, 2010.
Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), decision 5413-2011, April 29, 2011.
Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), decision 2084-2013, February 13, 2013.
Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), decision 9044-2016, July 1, 2016.
Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), decision 7763-2017, May 26, 2017.
Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), decision 27626-2021, December 9, 2021.
Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), decision 24922-2025, August 8, 2025.
Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), decision 13296-2026, April 21, 2026.
Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), decision 17877-2026, May 19, 2026.
First Chamber of the Supreme Court (Sala Primera), ruling 1977-2020, June 3, 2020.
First Chamber of the Supreme Court (Sala Primera), ruling 1491-2024, October 24, 2024.
First Civil Court of Appeals of San José, decision 1321-2021, September 28, 2021.
First Civil Court of Appeals of San José, decision 772-2023, June 9, 2023.
First Civil Court of Appeals of San José, decision 1548-2024, October 7, 2024.
First Civil Court of Appeals of San José, decision 907-2025, June 16, 2025 (with a dissenting opinion).
Second Civil Court of Appeals of San José, First Section, decision 552-2023, October 3, 2023.
Second Civil Court of Appeals of San José, Second Section, decision 215-2024, April 24, 2024.
Second Civil Court of Appeals of San José, First Section, decision 513-2025, October 1, 2025.
Second Civil Court of Appeals of San José, First Section, decision 49-2026, January 28, 2026.
Civil and Labor Court of Appeals of Alajuela, decision 637-2022, July 25, 2022.
Civil and Labor Court of Appeals of Alajuela, decision 45-2024, January 25, 2024.
Civil and Labor Court of Appeals of Alajuela, decision 105-2026, January 29, 2026.
Civil and Labor Court of Appeals of Heredia, decision 656-2024, December 11, 2024.
Civil and Labor Court of Appeals of Heredia, decision 195-2025, May 19, 2025.
First Civil Court (Tribunal Primero Civil), decision 1309-2003, November 12, 2003.
Second Civil Court (Tribunal Segundo Civil), First Section, decision 170-2004, May 21, 2004.
First Civil Court (Tribunal Primero Civil), decision 823-2005, August 4, 2005.
Montejo Morales, Andrés, et al., Ley Reguladora de la Propiedad en Condominio y la Propiedad Horizontal en Costa Rica. Experiencias y problemas concretos [The Condominium Property Regulatory Law and Horizontal Property in Costa Rica: Experiences and Concrete Problems], Institute of Legal Research (Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas), University of Costa Rica, 2006.

This study is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice for any specific case. To discuss your situation, book a consultation.

All studies Share