A Spanish judge has warned property owners against misinterpreting a recent Supreme Court ruling after an 88-year-old woman had her water and electricity cut off during an eviction process.

The pensioner had lived in her Roquetas de Mar home for decades and reportedly paid her mortgage for 25 years before financial difficulties led to its repossession.

After the property was sold at auction, its new owner allegedly contacted the utility companies and ordered both supplies to be disconnected rather than waiting for the court to complete the eviction.

The woman had continued paying the utility bills and intended to remain in the property until a judge formally ordered her departure.

However, the supplies were cut off during the extreme heat of August, allegedly forcing her to leave and move in urgently with one of her daughters.

The new owner is now being investigated for suspected coercion.

Judge Claudio Garcia Vidales ordered the immediate restoration of the electricity and water as a precautionary measure.

The owner subsequently contacted the suppliers and arranged for both services to be reconnected.

In his ruling, the judge warned that people were using the legally imprecise term ‘okupa’ to describe anybody remaining in a property against its owner’s wishes.

He stressed that an illegal intruder who breaks into somebody else’s home is not in the same legal position as a tenant who stops paying rent, or a former owner awaiting a court-ordered eviction after losing a property.

The 88-year-old had a previous legal right to occupy the home and could therefore not simply be treated as an illegal squatter.

Although she was obliged to leave once the court ordered her eviction, the new owner was not entitled to force her out through unilateral pressure.

The confusion follows Supreme Court judgment 426/2026, issued on June 24.

The ruling established that a property owner does not necessarily commit coercion by refusing to continue paying for utilities used by somebody who entered a home illegally and has no right to occupy it.

It did not grant landlords unrestricted permission to cut supplies to tenants, former owners or other people with an existing or disputed right of possession.

Indeed, the Supreme Court case resulted in the conviction of a man who cancelled the electricity at the family home occupied by his wife during divorce proceedings.

He was sentenced to nine months in prison because the court concluded that he used the disconnection to pressure her into leaving a property she still had the right to occupy.

The Roquetas judge said only the courts can authorise and execute an eviction.

Property owners who attempt to accelerate the process by cutting essential services could instead face criminal proceedings for coercion.