All EOS blogs All Spain blogs  Start your own blog Start your own blog 

El blog de Maria

Your daily Spanish Law reporter. Have it with a cafe con leche. www.costaluzlawyers.es

Legal tip 1076. Lagos de Santa Maria by the Supreme Court
Thursday, December 5, 2013 @ 2:02 PM

Very recent Court Decission by the Supreme Court in regards of this conflictive development in Marbella. Los Lagos de Santa María. Third time the Supreme Court discusses on this in October 2013.

Supreme Court, following a doctrine they started last year ( 10th of September 2012), again, states that lack of First Occupation License is a cause for contract cancellation just in two cases:

1) If the lack of first Occupation license was expressly agreed as essential ( major breach) in the contract

or, in deffect of the above

2) In those cases where related circunstances tell that granting of First Occupation License will not come soon due to possible planning illegalities.

Developer will always be able to prove that the Lack of License is accesory ( minor) and not an essential ( major) breach if the lack of obtention of this is not related to " unpossibility to give to the unit the use it was built for" 

A reform/clarification of Law 57/68 seems necessary to me as all this doctrine seems to somehow contradict Law 57/68 and, specially provision 3 which clearly says:

"Article Three - Upon expiration of the period allowed if the construction and delivery of the 
dwelling has not taken place, the buyer may choose between the cancellatino of the contract  with repayment of the amounts paid in advance, plus the six percent annual interest, or give the developer extended time and this period must be stated in an annex to the contract awarded,  specifying the new period with the date of completion of construction and delivery of housing". 

I can understand that law 57/68 is possibly too general and that there should probably be a classification of breaches with corresponding consequences ( compensation/cancellation), but, being Law as it is at present, I find difficult to assume that the Lack of First Occupation License will just grant cancellation rights to buyers if this has been expressly agreed in the contract or a Urban/Planning illegality is involved.

What about those cases where developer run out of funds or run away with them and development is not finished for years, where no Urban/Planning breach is involved?

Legal advice

Arcos de la Frontera, Cádiz, South of Spain, by Guillermo J., at facebook.com

 

 

 



Like 0




4 Comments


ads said:
Thursday, December 5, 2013 @ 1:56 PM

Maria,
How does this affect those who have already gained cancellation of contract but are seeking return of monies from the Bank who provided a generic BG?


mariadecastro said:
Thursday, December 5, 2013 @ 1:58 PM

It does not affect them. That cancellation is non challengeable. Firm. Unamovable


ads said:
Thursday, December 5, 2013 @ 1:59 PM

Also Maria does this mean that inalienable rights are not being recognised in Spain when they formed part of the purchasers' consent to original purchase contract?


mariadecastro said:
Thursday, December 5, 2013 @ 2:07 PM

Anne:

In my opinion, it does.

I do think Law 57/68 needs to be re-written and set a classification of breaches and its legal consequences.

Maria


Only registered users can comment on this blog post. Please Sign In or Register now.




 

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More information here. x