In the world of residential construction, the figure ofcondominium administrator It plays a central role and, at the same time, very delicate. In fact, it is the person in charge of managing the common assets, administering the funds of the condominiums, having the resolved works carried out and guaranteeing transparency in the accounting.
But what if this balance breaks? What are the consequences if an administrator fails to communicate relevant information, account for the expenses without justification, or does he manage the accounting documentation with superficiality and opacity?
A recent sentence of the Court of Latina has clarified these questions, condemning a former administrator for serious defaults during his mandate, with relevant economic consequences for the condominium he managed.
In this article we will analyze the facts ascertained by the judge, the legal responsibilities of the administrator according to the civil code, and what condominiums can do to protect themselves.
Have you ever checked how your money is spent in your condominium? Do you know that there are precise legal responsibilities for those who manage common funds badly?
Read on to discover your rights.
Advertisement – Advertising
The judicial affair: between opaque passages and accounts that do not return
The case originates from a classic passage of witness in the condominium management, which will prove to be anything but ordinary. The condominium in question, at the end of 2015, appoints a new administrator after five years of management by the predecessor. Apparently, it is a normal rotation, but during the passage of deliveries – which took place in two phases, one in October 2015 and a definitive one in March 2016 – numerous irregularities emerge.
The new administrator discovers, through a detailed analysis of the accounting documentation, different anomalies: large expenses not justified, payments without tax receipts, works declared as carried out but never made, and even judicial actions that had not been communicated to the condominiums.
We talk about Over 16,000 euros of shortfallsto which they add up About 25,000 euros of indirect damages.
One of the most striking episodes concerns a 2009 contract for the Removal of the Eternity: Initially the cost had been bound in over 46,000 euros. Of these, a part should have served for works never performed, including the painting of a 2,256 euro curb. Not only that: 7,950 euros have been paid to a subcontracting company in a non -traceable way, of which 3,000 with a check without assembly resolution, and 4,950 insolved and then the subject of notified injunction … but never communicated to condominiums.
In addition, the former administrator had accounted for the entire sum of the contract, but in fact only 38,825 euros were justified.
Hence the most important voice of direct shortfall: 7,374.07 euros without any documentary coverage.
To this are added: a share of insurance expenses never paid for a accident in 2013 (with consequent expenditure of 3,400 euros to be paid by the condominiums), an invoice never issued for the compensation of 905 euros of the administrator himself, and even the failure to charge a sum received by a condominium bordering the maintenance of a co -ownership.
All these elements, combined with the impossibility for condominiums to access the tax deductions of 36% For renovation works – due to the failure to issue invoices and traceability of payments – they constituted the basis of the judicial action intended against the former administrator.
An action not only aimed at the recovery of shortcomings, but also to the recognition of wider damage, linked to the negligence in the management of the trustee assignment.
Advertisement – Advertising
The decision of the Court of Latina: condemnation for bad management and compensation for damages
With sentence no. 199/2025, published on 1 February 2025, the ordinary Court of Latina has fully accepted the questions proposed by the actor condominium, recognizing the mala gestio of the outgoing administrator in the period 2010-2015.
According to the judge, the administrator violated the duties of diligence provided for by art. 1710 of the civil code, causing serious property damage to the condominium. The opaque management and without accounting justifications, the expenses included in the final balance without any proof, the omitted communication of judicial documents, the failure to pay the insurance and the loss of the tax benefit linked to the renovation works have been considered unequivocal elements of contractual default.
The court therefore has The administrator was sentenced to return € 16,201,43 for cash shortenies and the payment of € 24,632.00 as compensation for damagessum that includes:
- € 4,600.00 for the duplicate payment following the injunction never communicated;
- € 3,400.00 paid by the condominiums due to the lack of insurance coverage in 2013;
- € 16,632.00 equitatively quantified as a failure to tax (equal to 36% of the amount paid for the works).
In addition, they have been recognized legal interests and monetary revaluationthus configuring the compensation obligation such as value debt. The legal and technical consultancy costs (CTU) were entirely charged to the defendant.
The sentence is based on a detailed reconstruction, supported by the technical advice appointed by the judge, who ascertained that Accounting irregularities even exceeded what initially reported by the actress. According to the CTU, in fact, it was not possible to consistently reconstruct the accounting of the period, compromising any form of transparency and control.
The ruling is part of the wake of a jurisprudence increasingly attentive to the trustee and professional role of the condominium administrator, reaffirming that The management of the money of others requires rigor, traceability and personal responsibility.
Advertisement – Advertising
The role of the administrator and the responsibility for bad management
The condominium administrator is not a simple executor of assembly resolutions, but holds a real Private Law Officeassimilable to a agent with representation. In other words, he acts on behalf of the condominiums, which are his “principals”, and is required to administer the common parts of the building and the condominium funds With diligence, correctness and transparencyas required by article 1710 of the civil code.
Article n ° 1710 cc
Diligence of the agentThe agent is required to perform the mandate with the diligence of the good father of the family; But if the mandate is free, responsibility for fault is evaluated with less rigor.
The agent is required to make the excess circumstances that can determine the revocation or modification of the mandate to the principal.
This figure, as the Court of Cassation in United Sections (sentence no. 9148/2008) also reiterated, directly represents the individual participants in the condominium, and therefore must answer for his work not only against the entire condominium, but also of the individual condominiums. The responsibility that derives from it is of the contractual type: this means that, in the event of non -fulfillment, the condominium can act in court to obtain the termination of the contract, compensation for damages or the return of the unduly managed sums.
In the case decided by the Court of Latina, the judge clarified that it is not sufficient for the former administrator generically affirming that he has acted in good faith. It is he who has to try to have fully fulfilled his assignmentdemonstrating every exit, every payment and every decision taken in the interest of the condominiums, supporting it with suitable documentation.
Failure to justify accounting, in fact, makes the bad management presume, with all the consequences of the case.
The Court also reiterated that, at the time of termination of the assignment, the administrator has the obligation to deliver all the documentation in his possessionunder penalty of further aggravation of its position. The violation of this duty constitutes a further indication of bad management and can aggravate asset responsibility.
In short, the administrator cannot afford lightness. Every euro cashed, every expense made, every decision that affects common goods must be traceable, documented and deliberated. In the absence of this, as demonstrated by the sentence in question, the road opens to a full sentence for contractual default And damage from bad management.
Advertisement – Advertising
Compromise tax deductions: the invisible but concrete damage
Among the most serious consequences of the mala gestio ascertained by the Court of Latina, there is the loss of law by condominiums to benefit from tax deductions provided for building renovations. A circumstance that, although less immediate than a shortage in the cashier, had a tangible economic impact on the pockets of the condominiums.
In detail, the condominium had entrusted a contract from over 46,000 euros for interventions of Removal of the Eternity and other extraordinary works on the common parts. Based on current legislation at the time (Ministerial Decree no. 41/1998), these interventions would have allowed the individual condominiums to benefit from one Irpef deduction of 36%provided that the payments were traceable and supported by regular invoices.
The problem? No invoice has ever been issued for a substantial part of the works. And also the payments were not made with the criteria required by the legislation (such as “speaking” transfers), thus precluding any possibility of deduction.
A serious omission that, as the judge highlighted, he fully returned to the duties of the administrator: he was the person in charge of following the entire administrative process, including the correct tax management of the interventions.
The Court of Cassation, in a recent ordinance (n. 6086/2020), reiterated precisely this principle: it is the task of the administrator to ensure that the payments for the works on the common parties are carried out according to traceable methods, precisely in order to protect the right of condominiums to take advantage of the tax breaks.
The judge of Latina therefore quantified the damage suffered by the condominiums on the equitative basis, liquidating it in 16,632 eurosequal to 36% of the amount paid for the works resulting in the final balance. A non -symbolic, but concrete figure, which represents a “damage from lost occasion” – avoidable, if the administrator had operated with due diligence.
