Malaga unemployment aid recipient ordered to pay 7,000 euros for failing to register home sale

Selling a home can impact a Spanish resident's eligibility for certain unemployment benefits and allowances. When the sale is not reported to the state public employment service (Sepe), the consequences can extend far beyond a simple temporary suspension of benefits.

This is what happened to an unemployed woman in Malaga. The High Court of Justice of Andalucía (TSJA) has upheld the permanent loss of the benefit for those over 52 that she was receiving and the obligation to repay more than 7,000 euros received over almost two years.

The resolution from 12 January 2026 rejects the woman's appeal. She was objecting the Sepe's decision after the employment service discovered she had sold a property and not notified it.

She had been receiving a subsidy for people over 52 years of age since March 2020. Two years later, the SEPE initiated a procedure to terminate that aid after verifying that she had obtained profits from the transfer of a home on 24 September 2020.

The Sepe declared the payment of 7,032.66 euros improper and ordered its reimbursement. The woman filed an appeal and subsequently took the matter to court, but both the social court in Malaga and now TSJA have upheld the Sepe's decision.

One of the key aspects of the ruling is that the panel of judges clearly distinguishes between the income obtained from the sale of the property and the failure to report that transaction.

The woman argued that the profits from the sale should only be counted in the month in which they occurred. In her opinion, the legal consequence should have been a temporary suspension of the subsidy, not its permanent termination, as per the Supreme Court's rule.

The ruling expressly cites this rule and admits that receiving money from the sale of a property "should only lead to the suspension of the subsidy during the month in which said income was obtained".

However, the judges said that this was not the real issue in the case. The truly serious matter is that the beneficiary never informed the Sepe of the home sale. It is precisely this omission that the law considers a serious offence.

The ruling says that "the termination of the subsidy is not due to the income obtained from the sale of the property, but rather to the concealment of said sale".

The court says that those receiving unemployment benefits have a permanent duty to report any circumstances that may affect the continuation of the benefit. Social security law mandates reporting any significant changes in income.

"It is clear that the plaintiff omitted to communicate this information to the defendant body at the time of the sale," the ruling says.

The woman had requested the annulment of the first instance ruling, stating that it contained insufficient proven facts and deficient legal reasoning. However, the TSJA rejected this argument, reiterating that effective judicial protection does not require lengthy rulings, but rather sufficiently reasoned ones so that the parties understand the grounds for the decision.

The lower court's ruling allowed her to challenge both the established facts and the legal interpretation the court had made. "The mere fact that the appellant disagrees with the established facts or the legal reasoning cannot be sufficient grounds for declaring the ruling null and void," the court said.

Finally, the TSJA fully ratified the decision of the social court and maintained both the termination of the subsidy and the obligation to return the amounts unduly collected.

Access the broad Malaga and Costa del Sol news index