Consultation

Successful Cases

At Zabalgo Abogados, we don’t make promises – we deliver results. We have secured joint custody arrangements in complex cases, resolved international inheritance matters without conflict, and handled divorces with efficiency and sensitivity.

Our specialisation in Family Law, International Family Law and Inheritance Law is underpinned by values that set us apart: honesty, ensuring we always tell our clients the truth; compassion, offering support during difficult times; and an unwavering commitment to every case. Each success story reflects who we are: a team that turns legal problems into real solutions, with integrity and a personal touch.

Why read our success stories:

🔎 Discover how the right legal approach can change a life.

🌍 Learn from real-life situations, from divorces in Spain to international inheritance cases.

💡 Be inspired by creative solutions that prove there’s always a way forward

(Names and certain details have been altered to protect the confidentiality we owe our clients)

Liquidation of community property

January 2021.

The Madrid Court accepts the arguments presented by Paloma Zabalgo’s Law Firm, establishing that the funds contributed to the marital community from donations made to Paloma Zabalgo’s client are of a private nature and must be reimbursed to the client.

May 2017

The Court of First Instance accepts the action filed by Paloma Zabalgo’s law firm, ordering the division of the jointly owned real estate property of the parties – who are already divorced – and deciding to dismiss the opposing action. The opposing action sought the return of amounts paid for the purchase of said property, contributed with winnings from a lottery prize. The court considered that the lottery prize was the private money of the other party, as they were under a separate property regime. The Court denies this request, as the judicial proceedings have demonstrated the intention to allocate the lottery prize to the common capital of the spouses, even in the context of a separate property arrangement.

2012

The execution writ issued by Court No. 6 in Bilbao accepts the execution lawsuit filed, bringing an end to the litigation between the parties after ten years. Legal representation in this case was carried out jointly with Cristina Almeida.

Desde Zabalgo Abogados nos centramos en separar con precisión lo que debía considerarse privativo y lo que realmente pertenecía a la sociedad de gananciales. Tras recopilar escrituras de herencia, movimientos bancarios y documentación empresarial, logramos acreditar el origen de cada bien.

El acuerdo final permitió a Laura conservar íntegramente los inmuebles heredados de su familia, mientras que Andrés obtuvo el reconocimiento de su aportación empresarial sin que se produjeran desequilibrios injustos. La liquidación quedó cerrada con un reparto justo y sin necesidad de prolongar el litigio en instancias superiores.

Este caso demuestra que, con un trabajo riguroso y la estrategia adecuada, es posible transformar un proceso de liquidación de gananciales en una solución equilibrada para ambas partes.

Child abduction

June de 2021.

The Court of First Instance dismisses the petition for the return or repositioning of the minor, accepting the arguments put forth by the Paloma Zabalgo law firm regarding the lawful relocation with the consent of both parents.

2014

The judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance No. 66 in Madrid orders the suspension of visitation on the previously established day. This decision is confirmed by the Provincial Court of Madrid on February 13, 2014, primarily for the benefit of the child, with explicit condemnation of the father to pay the legal costs for opposing the request.

Compensatory alimony

October 2021.

The Court of First Instance No. 22 of Madrid rejects the request for modification of measures filed against Paloma Zabalgo’s client, accepting the arguments of Paloma Zabalgo’s law firm, whereby the compensatory pension established in favour of its client is neither extinguished nor reduced, maintaining it in its entirety.

April 2021.

 

The Provincial Court of Madrid grants the appeal filed by Paloma Zabalgo’s law firm against the Judgment denying the requested modification of measures, admitting the appeal and agreeing to substantially reduce the established compensatory pension, as well as its extinction upon the liquidation of the community property.

February 2020.

The Court of First Instance of Madrid grants the request of Paloma Zabalgo’s law firm’s client, agreeing to the extinction of the compensatory pension established, due to a substantial alteration of the circumstances previously existing. Thus, the Court accepts the arguments put forward by the firm in defence of the client and decrees the extinction of the compensatory pension in favour of the spouse, due to cause for such extinction.

December 2019

The Court of First Instance of Torrejón de Ardoz issued a judgment establishing the measures requested by Paloma Zabalgo’s law firm, having proven that the marriage did cause economic disparity to their client, in addition to granting the use of the family home for a period of time, as it held the most worthy interest of protection.

November 2018

The Provincial Court of Madrid grants the appeal filed by Paloma Zabalgo’s law firm, requesting the establishment of a compensatory alimony for our represented party, recognizing the right to an indefinite compensatory pension.

July 2018

The Court of First Instance of Alcobendas grants the request of Paloma Zabalgo’s law firm’s client, agreeing to the extinction of the compensatory alimony established, due to a substantial alteration of the circumstances previously existing. Thus, the Court accepts the arguments put forward by the firm in defence of the client and decrees the extinction of the compensatory pension in favour of the spouse, due to cause for such extinction.

October 2021.

The Court of First Instance No. 22 of Madrid rejects the request for modification of measures filed against Paloma Zabalgo’s client, accepting the arguments of Paloma Zabalgo’s law firm, whereby the compensatory alimony established in favour of its client is neither extinguished nor reduced, maintaining it in its entirety.

October 2015

The Court of First Instance No. 2 of Majadahonda rejects the request made to Paloma Zabalgo’s represented party, denying the compensatory pension, taking into account the short duration of the marriage, absence of children together, and the lack of circumstances that warrant the granting of a compensatory pension. The said resolution is confirmed by the Provincial Court of Madrid in a Judgment dated October 2016, with express imposition of costs on the appellant.

2014

The Court of First Instance No. 28 of Madrid issues a Divorce Judgment dated May 26, 2014, declaring the extinction of the compensatory alimony granted in separation proceedings, in accordance with the circumstances presented and legal arguments put forth by Paloma Zabalgo.

Use of the family domicile

June 2021.

The Court of First Instance No. 23 of Madrid decides to grant the use of the family home to the wife, as said home is her separate property, dismissing the husband’s request for attribution in his favor, and accepting the arguments of the Paloma Zabalgo law firm, regarding the absence of a more worthy interest of protection on the husband’s part due to his economic income.

September 2020.

The Court accepts the arguments put forward by the Paloma Zabalgo law firm, denying the extinction of the right to use the family home, as it had been granted to the law firm’s client, and there was no cause for such modification according to the agreements made between the spouses.

January 2020.

The Provincial Court of Madrid dismisses the appeal filed against the Judgment issued by the Court of First Instance of Alcobendas, which ordered the extinction of the compensatory pension that our client should pay, as the Paloma Zabalgo law firm demonstrated a substantial alteration of the economic circumstances to justify said extinction.

November 2019

The Paloma Zabalgo Law Firm filed a lawsuit requesting the extinction of the right to use the family home granted to the opposing party due to the majority age of the common children. The opposing party requested an increase in child support and an indefinite attribution of the right to use the family home. However, the Judgment was issued fully in favor of our requests, without modifying child support and extinguishing the right to use the family home.

October 2018

The Paloma Zabalgo Law Firm filed a lawsuit requesting the extinction of the right to use the family home granted to the opposing party due to the majority age of the common children. The opposing party requested an increase in child support and an indefinite attribution of the right to use the family home. However, the Judgment was issued fully in favor of our requests, without modifying child support and extinguishing the right to use the family home.

March 2017

The Supreme Court has upheld the appeal filed by the Paloma Zabalgo law firm, revoking the Judgment issued by the Provincial Court of Madrid, which granted the use and enjoyment of the family home to the mother and children, until their economic independence, having established shared custody. The Supreme Court revokes the previous decision and establishes the limitation of said use until the liquidation of the community property or the sale of the property, as there is shared custody, and therefore, no explicit assignment of the family home, also stating that upon reaching the majority age of the children, the right to use also ceases.

January 2017

Limitation of the use and enjoyment of the family home: Court of First Instance No. 80 of Madrid has issued a Judgment, establishing shared custody and attributing the use and enjoyment of the family home to the child along with the mother, while limiting the right to use for a maximum period of two years, as the home is the father’s separate property, accepting the request made by the Paloma Zabalgo law firm.

Diciembre 2015

El Juzgado de Primera Instancia nº 24 de Madrid, acuerda la custodia compartida de los hijos menores, acogiendo la petición del cliente de Paloma Zabalgo, y estableciendo el uso alterno del domicilio familiar hasta que se proceda a su venta, dejando sin efecto el Auto judicial dictado por el que se acordaba la atribución en exclusiva a la madre de la guarda y custodia de los menores.

December 2015

Court of First Instance No. 24 of Madrid grants shared custody of the minor children, accepting the request of Paloma Zabalgo’s client, and establishing the alternate use of the family home until its sale, nullifying the previous court order that granted exclusive use to the mother for the custody of the minors.

December 2015

The Provincial Court of Madrid, Section 22, grants the appeal filed by Paloma Zabalgo, establishing that the attribution of the use and enjoyment of the family home is granted until the children reach majority age, revoking the Judgment issued by the Court of First Instance, which established the attribution of use until the economic independence of the minor children.

April 2014

The Provincial Court of Madrid issues a Judgment dated April 11, 2014, granting the appeal filed by the represented party of Paloma Zabalgo, agreeing to the request that the mortgage burdening the family home be paid according to the constitutive deed of the mortgage deed, which had been imposed as a marital obligation entirely on the husband.

2013

Court of First Instance No. 54 of Madrid issues a Judgment dated January 15, 2013, granting the lawsuit filed by the father, declaring the extinction of the use that had been attributed to the common child upon reaching majority age.

Child support

June 2018

At Paloma Zabalgo Law Firm, we always strive to avoid adversarial proceedings, reaching agreements that benefit the minors and enable parents to fulfill the agreed-upon terms. In this case, our client had more than five open family proceedings with a high level of conflict between the parents, managing to conclude all of them through a global agreement reached by the parties, beneficial for both the parents and the children, with the assistance of their respective attorneys.

March 2017

 
The Twenty-Fourth Section of the Illustrious Provincial Court of Madrid grants the appeal filed by the Paloma Zabalgo law firm, agreeing to reduce child support in modification proceedings, due to the father’s decreased income, as there is a substantial change in circumstances existing at the time of divorce, duly justified and proven to warrant such a request.

May 2015

On June 2, 2014, the court, accepting the mother’s request for the declaration of extraordinary medical and extracurricular academy expenses, requested by Paloma Zabalgo’s client, on the grounds that the latter were necessary due to the child’s academic performance. This Judgment was ratified by the Provincial Court of Madrid in May 2015.

May 2014.

The Court of First Instance No. 93 of Madrid grants the request of Paloma Zabalgo’s client dated May 28, 2014, to grant authorization for the change of school, considering it a suitable decision for the situation of the 12-year-old minor, as it responds to better educational opportunities and proximity to the family home.

Exclusive custody

May 2021.

 
The Court of First Instance of Móstoles grants custody of the three minor children to the mother, as she has demonstrated and has been the primary caregiver of her children. The father has not been involved in caring for the minors, nor does he have flexible working hours to care for them.

March 2021.

The Court of First Instance rejects the lawsuit seeking modification of measures against the client of Paloma Zabalgo, establishing that the regime of sole custody is most suitable according to the best interest of the child.

January 2021.

The Court of First Instance grants the request of Paloma Zabalgo Law Firm, granting sole custody to the mother, client of Paloma Zabalgo Law Firm, considering it to be in the best interest of the minors.

October 2020.

The Court of First Instance denies the lawsuit filed against the client of Paloma Zabalgo Law Firm, maintaining sole custody in favour of the mother, in the best interest of the child.

October 2019

 
The Court issues a judgment granting sole custody to the mother, a client of the law firm, accepting the arguments presented by Paloma Zabalgo Law Firm, demonstrating that the mother has been the primary caregiver of the minors since their birth. It was demonstrated in this procedure that the father did not have the availability or family support to attend to the care of the minors, and furthermore, the economic precariousness claimed by the father was not consistent with reality.

May 2019

The Court issues a judgment maintaining sole maternal custody with compliance with the visitation regime in a supervised setting, accommodating the requests of Paloma Zabalgo Law Firm. The father requested a modification of the custody regime to joint custody; however, Paloma Zabalgo Law Firm was able to demonstrate that the father-child relationship was completely deteriorated, leading to the decision that visitations established in favor of the father would take place in a supervised setting until such relationship is restored.

February 2019

The Court issues a judgment establishing sole paternal custody, accommodating the requests of Paloma Zabalgo Law Firm. The mother requested sole maternal custody; however, during the procedure, Paloma Zabalgo Law Firm demonstrated the severe deterioration of the bond between mother and daughter. Thus, the Court decided on sole paternal custody with an extensive visitation schedule for the mother, aiming to restore the bond in the child’s best interest.

December 2018

 
The Court issues a judgment granting sole custody to the mother, a client of the law firm, accepting the arguments presented by Paloma Zabalgo Law Firm, demonstrating that the mother has been the primary caregiver of the minors since their birth. It was demonstrated in this procedure that the father did not have the availability or family support to attend to the care of the minors, and furthermore, the economic precariousness claimed by the father was not consistent with reality.

May 2018

The Court of First Instance granted the lawsuit filed by Paloma Zabalgo Law Firm, granting sole custody to the mother in the best interest of the minors. The Provincial Court of Madrid agreed to hold a hearing and the preparation of a report by the psychosocial team, reaching an agreement prior to its celebration, by which custody of the children was awarded to the mother, a client of Paloma Zabalgo Law Firm, as it was the most beneficial measure for the minors.

December 2017

The Provincial Court of Madrid, Section 24, issues a judgment granting sole custody of the minor children to the mother, a client of Paloma Zabalgo Law Firm, even against the recommendation made by the psychosocial team advising joint custody. The judgment establishes that joint custody is not suitable for the minors, as argued by Paloma Zabalgo Law Firm, challenging the psychosocial report.

July 2016

The Court of First Instance No. 7 of Móstoles grants the request made by Paloma Zabalgo Law Firm and awards sole custody to the mother, as it has been the regime followed since the breakup of the couple, and the mother has a stronger bond with the child, having been responsible for all matters concerning the girl.

June 2016

The Court of First Instance No. 24 of Madrid accepts the agreement reached by both parties, after granting sole custody to the mother in provisional measures, to establish a progressive custody regime of the common child, as advised by the psychosocial team. The attorneys of each party carried out significant mediation work to reach this agreement, which was satisfactory for both clients.

February 2016

The Court issues a judgment granting sole custody to the mother, a client of Paloma Zabalgo Law Firm, as it was proven that the mother has been the primary caregiver of the minors since their birth, and the father did not have the availability to care for them.

December 2015

The Court of Leganés in Madrid issues a judgment granting sole custody of the minor children to the mother, a client of Paloma Zabalgo Law Firm, even against the recommendation made by the psychosocial team advising joint custody. The judgment establishes that joint custody is not suitable for the minors, as argued by Paloma Zabalgo Law Firm, challenging the psychosocial report.

2013

The Court of First Instance No. 22 of Madrid accepts the request made by the represented party of Paloma Zabalgo Law Firm and modifies the established custody system, adjusting the situation to the principle of the best interest of the child, by awarding sole custody to the father. The father is also granted the use and enjoyment of the family home, and child support is to be paid by the mother. The judgment was ratified by the Provincial Court of Madrid in 2014.

Guardianship and shared custody

July 2021.

The judgment grants shared custody of the minor children, rejecting the mother’s request for sole custody and establishing shared custody requested by the father, a client of Paloma Zabalgo Law Firm. Additionally, it sets a higher percentage of contribution to expenses for the mother, based on the difference in incomes, which are higher for the mother.

July 2021.

The judgment issued by the Court of First Instance No. 3 of Arganda del Rey establishes shared custody, considering it the most beneficial arrangement for the minor. It acknowledges that the shared custody arrangement, established since the issuance of the Provisional Measures Order, has been properly exercised, and the minor has adapted well to it.

November de 2020.

The Court of First Instance of Madrid accepts the request made by Paloma Zabalgo Law Firm, granting shared custody of the common daughter, considering it the most beneficial arrangement for the child.

October de 2020.

The Court of First Instance of Arganda del Rey establishes shared custody for both parents in provisional measures, admitting the arguments presented by the father represented by Paloma Zabalgo Law Firm. It demonstrates that both parents have exercised joint care of the minors.

July 2020

The Provincial Court of Madrid overturns the Judgment issued by the Court of First Instance in Madrid, which established sole custody in favour of the mother. It accepts the arguments put forward by the client of Paloma Zabalgo Law Firm, establishing shared custody.

June 2019

The Court of First Instance approves in its judgment the agreement reached between the parties in court, on the same day of the trial, thus prematurely ending a dispute between parents. They reached an agreement for shared custody with a weekly stay regime, thereby promoting the bond of the child with both parents.

April 2019

The Court issues a judgment, establishing shared paternal custody, accepting the requests of Paloma Zabalgo Law Firm. The mother requested exclusive maternal custody with an extensive visitation regime for the father. However, the law firm demonstrated that both parents had work availability to take care of the children’s daily needs, as they had been doing so far. Therefore, the Court established a shared custody regime in the best interest of the minors.

March 2019

The Court issues a judgment modifying the established custody regime, accepting the requests of Paloma Zabalgo Law Firm and establishing shared custody. The mother requested to maintain exclusive maternal custody. However, Paloma Zabalgo Law Firm demonstrated the existence of a “hidden” shared custody, where both parents were responsible for the daily care of the child. Thus, the Court established a shared custody regime in the best interest of the child.

 

January 2019

The Court issues a judgment, denying the modification of measures requested by the mother, accepting the requests of Paloma Zabalgo Law Firm in the best interest of the child. The mother sought to modify a shared custody agreement to a regime where the child would spend two days with each parent. The Court accepted the arguments presented by Paloma Zabalgo Law Firm, understanding that this modification would harm the child’s interest.

September 2018

The Court of First Instance of Alcorcón granted shared custody after it was established that both parents had been taking care of the daily and ordinary needs of the children, even though the mother of the minors hindered the relationship between the father and the common children throughout the process without any justification, negatively influencing the minors.

March 2018

The Court of First Instance approves the agreement reached between the parents in court on the same day of the provisional measures hearing. Due to the special needs of the minors, the client of Paloma Zabalgo Law Firm proposed shared custody with the use of the family home to both parents on alternate weeks, coinciding with the custody schedule. The Court accepts the request made by Paloma Zabalgo Law Firm, as it is the most beneficial situation for the minors, allowing for a subsequent agreement between the parties, adjusting the economic situation of each parent.

February 2018

The Court of First Instance No. 27 of Madrid approves the Regulatory Agreement drafted by Paloma Zabalgo Law Firm, which establishes shared custody of the minors, as well as the other measures related to them. Regarding the family home, the parties agreed to assign it to one of them, with the other being compensated financially. Both the measures related to the minors and the termination of joint ownership and allocation of the family home were included in a Regulatory Agreement, ratified before the Court of First Instance.

January 2018

The Court of First Instance No. 23 of Madrid accepts the agreement reached between the parties in court on the same day scheduled for the hearing of provisional measures, thus prematurely ending a dispute between parents in which even unjustified accusations by the mother had been made to avoid shared custody, despite the father being fully involved in the care of his children. Likewise, the limitation of the use of the family home is agreed upon since it is the private property of our client, and no compensatory pension is established.

November 2017

The Court of First Instance accepts the action requested by Paloma Zabalgo Law Firm, agreeing to shared custody as well as the limitation of the use of the family home for annual periods until the effective sale or liquidation of the community property. This decision was made as the father, a client of Paloma Zabalgo, demonstrated suitability and adequate conditions for exercising such custody.

2013

February 2017

Shared custody in Provisional Measures Order: The Court of First Instance No. 28 of Madrid establishes shared custody in provisional measures, based on evidence provided in the proceedings, demonstrating the father’s suitability and exercise of care for his children, who is a client of Paloma Zabalgo Law Firm.

October 2016

Shared custody of a six-month-old baby: The Court of First Instance No. 85 of Madrid approves the Regulatory Agreement signed by the parties, establishing shared custody of a six-month-old baby, considering it in the best interest of the child. This agreement, avoiding a contentious judicial procedure, was reached for the benefit of the child and to save the father, a client of Paloma Zabalgo Law Firm, from legal proceedings.

September 2016

The Court of First Instance No. 79 of Madrid grants the request filed by the client of Paloma Zabalgo, establishing shared custody of the minors. This decision follows a judicial exploration since they are twelve years old, due to their express desire to continue under the custody of both parents. Additionally, the Court denies the compensatory pension requested by the wife, as it does not meet the criteria established in the Civil Code or in case law for its establishment.

August 2016

The Court of First Instance No. 79 of Madrid grants the mother’s request for a school change, defended by Silvia Gómez, authorizing the mother to change the child’s school, considering it the most beneficial for the child.

March 2016

The Court of First Instance of Torrejón issues an Order, establishing shared custody of the minor children, accepting the request of the client of Paloma Zabalgo Law Firm. The Court understands that both parents have exercised daily care of the children since their birth, denying the assignment of exclusive custody to the mother and without prejudice to the preparation of a report by the psychosocial team in the divorce procedure. Thus, the Court establishes the shared custody regime in provisional measures, preventing delays in the preparation of the report from turning the father into a mere visitor of his children, allowing him to continue caring for the minors until the divorce judgment is issued.

March, 2015

The response to the lawsuit filed by Paloma Zabalgo is accepted, agreeing to shared custody between both parents, as well as the allocation of use and enjoyment of the family home until the liquidation of community property. This request was made by the lawyer under the new jurisprudential doctrine of the Supreme Court and the Provincial Court of Madrid, considering shared custody the most beneficial regime for the minors.

February 2015

The Court of First Instance No. 28 of Madrid accepts the request made by the representative of Paloma Zabalgo, granting shared custody of the minor children to both parents, considering it the most beneficial regime for the minors. This decision is based on the report made by the psychosocial team attached to the Court, a request also made by the Public Prosecutor.

We take care of your interests and those of your family.

Contact us and our team of family law professionals will guide you in the following steps.

Paloma Zabalgo
President of the Family and Inheritance Section of ICAM

University Certificate in Workplace Well-being. ICAM and Cortina Fundation – Florida University

Member of the following associations:

This site is registered on wpml.org as a development site. Switch to a production site key to remove this banner.