The Provincial Court of Málaga acquits a woman accused of promising marriage to her boyfriend so that he would co-own a €715,000 house in Marbella that he fully paid for. The court sees no evidence of deception and refers the conflict to the civil sphere.
The Provincial Court of Málaga has acquitted a woman of the fraud charge brought against her by her ex-partner, who claimed that she made him believe they would marry so he would buy a property in Marbella and also put it in both their names. The ruling, dated 21 October 2025 by the Third Section, concludes that there is no evidence of prior deception or a marriage promise linked to the transaction, as reported by Diario Sur.
The events date back to 2013, when the couple began their relationship. The man, who claimed to be in a good financial situation, decided to purchase a property that would be their future marital home. The sale was formalised on 27 June 2014 before a notary: the deed stated that both acquired the property in equal shares and with exclusive rights, although the full price of €715,000 was paid entirely by him. Each was registered as the owner of 50%.
A year later, the relationship ended. The man demanded that his ex-partner return half of the property, as she was a co-owner without having contributed any money. The woman's refusal led to a civil lawsuit resolved by the Fifth Section of the Provincial Court of Málaga in a ruling dated 3 December 2020.
The matter also had criminal implications. The private prosecution argued that the woman had taken advantage of her partner's trust to gain a financial benefit and that she had promised to marry to ensure he would register the property in both their names, only to later break off the relationship with the intent of illicit gain. The defence requested full acquittal.
“There is no evidence whatsoever that this occurred”
The court found no deception. During the trial, the accused admitted that her then-partner never required her to buy the house as a condition for marriage. The ruling emphasises that a promise of marriage does not guarantee the continuation of the relationship, as relationships “end for various reasons,” and that a subsequent breakup does not alone allow for the conclusion that there was an intent to deceive from the outset.
The judges also considered the messages the man sent to his then-partner, in which he stated that he knew she did not love him. This circumstance, according to the court, “is inconsistent with the marriage promise allegedly made by the woman.”
The key issue is not who paid for the house, a proven fact, but whether there was any deception prior to or simultaneous with the real estate transaction. For fraud to exist, it is not enough to demonstrate economic harm: it is necessary to prove a “sufficient artifice” that caused an error and a financial displacement sought by the accused. The Court distinguishes between that prior deception and “subsequent deceit,” which arises after the transaction and does not constitute a crime by itself. Determining whether the woman must return her share in the property is a civil matter, which both parties have already pursued.
The ruling can be appealed to the High Court of Justice of Andalusia (TSJA).
You may also like
