Sa Torre near Llucmajor: Finca Owners Left in the Rain – Trial over €200,000

When the construction stopped, the finca was under water

The smell of wet stone lingered long after a heavy autumn rain turned the tarp laid over the half-finished roof into a pool of water. Sa Torre near Llucmajor, usually defined by evenings on terraces and the distant chime of the village church, witnessed in 2017 a construction site that suddenly became Proceso en Llucmajor: Empresario de la construcción supuestamente defraudó a propietario de finca por 200.000 euros

What it's about

The indictment against a German contractor revolves around a renovation project on the terrace, roof and thermal insulation of a finca: the complaint demands around €200,000. The written contract also stipulated the involvement of an architect and that payment would only be made after completion. But the project was not completed, and some things apparently were never even applied for — for example the necessary formalities at the town hall.

The central question

The guiding question behind the trial at the regional court is simple and uncomfortable: how can an order that seems regulated on paper go so badly off the rails that owners end up not only with damp masonry but also with high costs? And who is responsible when formalities and practice drift apart?

What is often overlooked

The case reveals more than an isolated incident. In conversations with neighbors, one hears about missing permits, half-filled scaffolding and workers who come and go. The public prosecutor accuses the defendant of having accepted the roof work but not having applied any waterproofing. The result: penetrating water, a damaged interior and nearly €7,914 in immediate repair costs. Overall, the indictment, in addition to a prison sentence of one and a half years, also demands a fine of at least €5,400 as well as compensation of around €16,000.

Less attention is paid to the role of institutions and professions: was the construction project sufficiently supervised by the responsible architect? Could the town hall have intervened earlier? And what information deficits do owners — often foreign buyers — (De repente sin finca: turistas esperan miles de euros de un intermediario alemán) have, who rely on trust instead of official control?

Concrete protective measures for finca owners

The case cannot be solved by outrage alone, but it can be mitigated by prevention. Some simple but effective steps that every property owner in Mallorca should consider:

Agreements in writing and precise: Record that payments are tied to construction progress; link milestone payments to proof.

Check the architect and permits: Before signing a contract, verify the architect's practice (with the relevant professional association Colegio Oficial de Arquitectos de las Islas Baleares) and review copies of the licencia de obras at the Ayuntamiento de Llucmajor.

Secure advance payments: Require a bank guarantee or escrow account; limit advance payments (Reservas de fincas canceladas: Graves acusaciones contra un intermediario alemán en Mallorca).

Insurance and proof: Obtain proof that the contractor has valid business and liability insurance (seguro de responsabilidad civil).

On-site documentation: Photos, witnesses, written notices of defects and — if necessary — an expert report from an independent building surveyor.

Municipal contact points: The Oficina Municipal de Información al Consumidor of the Ayuntamiento and professional associations can provide assistance in a dispute.

What role does the community play?

On the small squares of Llucmajor and in the street cafés, the question of reliable firms is now heard more often. Here lies an opportunity: local networks, recommendation systems and transparent lists of vetted contractors could significantly reduce the risk for owners. A grumbling conversation at a bar can become the basis for a reputable network — if neighbors are willing to share their experiences.

What the trial can bring

The hearing at the regional court begins next week. There it will be clarified whether agreements were broken, whether formalities were deliberately ignored and whether the contractor is liable. For those affected, it is about clarification, reimbursement and sending a signal: will poor workmanship be punished under criminal and civil law, or will the bitter taste of lost trust remain?

In the end there remains a practical piece of advice often heard here among citrus trees and pines: better to ask twice than to trust once too often. The sound of a drilling machine on a construction site and the clink of a coffee cup on a calle are everyday — the smell of wet plaster after rain should not be.

Note: All figures mentioned come from the indictment; the court will now finally decide how matters stand legally.