El blog de Maria

antifreeze said:
Friday, October 24, 2014 @ 7:36 PM

This is good news in point of law Maria - is this a phase 3 unbuilt apartment? So there is a clear cut case to justify under Ley 57/68.

mariadecastro said:
Monday, October 27, 2014 @ 10:19 AM

Dear Antifreeze:

Yes it was a Law 57/68 case in Phase III.

Cheers!

María

kazcut1 said:
Wednesday, October 29, 2014 @ 3:11 PM

I put a deposit down in 2005 off plan and did not complete because of the issues I've had no contact from them for years . Yesterday I visited corvera only to see a family have brought the property . Where do I stand with my deposit now ? Also how come I wasn't offered it at such a low price that this family have paid ?

antifreeze said:
Wednesday, October 29, 2014 @ 3:21 PM

This is the absurdity of how the developer has acted - so they have kept the deposit and sold the property? Supposing now, you wanted to complete, could you get your deposit back now.....this is interesting as we asked for to buy the cheaper of the 2 properties we reserved, they refused to allow that....and insisted we complete.

Very interesting legal scenario now - should Corvera be sued for non refund and not informing you, nor not treating you unfairly?

kazcut1 said:
Wednesday, October 29, 2014 @ 3:30 PM

I was talking to a local lady who said the family brought it a few months ago then put a pool in . We went to look at corvera as We haven't been there for ages yes there are loads of buildings but it is a long way from being what we was promised .(top end golf club with amazing hotel and shops ) it was like ghost town .
I'm shocked the property has been sold they wanted just over 400.000 euro but according to the lady I spoke to she thinks it went for around 165.000
So even with our 150.000 euro deposit that's 315.000 euro but they still wanted just over 400.000 from us ???
My husband is about to start the ball rolling to see where he stands getting his money back . Has anyone got their deposit back on here ? Also has anyone any tips without spending a fortune on solicitor fees

mariadecastro said:
Thursday, October 30, 2014 @ 10:12 AM

Antifreeze, Kazcut:

Yes, the posterior sale of the apartment gives to you clear rights to ask for the refund of thge most of your deposits.

We have been fighting for these refunds to be of 95% of amounts, as around 5% is what the developer is charged---by application of law 57/68--- if you default.

These rights have not been acknowledged by the Supreme Court and therefore, we are bringing the case to the European Court of Human rights for one of our clients.

Cheers

María

antifreeze said:
Thursday, October 30, 2014 @ 11:00 AM

Thanks Maria.

Surely in law, a developer has at least to inform the ex-buyer that it is his intention to sell, if you do not complete?

If there is a loyalty agreement, how long does that last? By keeping the deposit and selling to a third party, the developer has 'made' his money - perhaps not the INFLATED amount that he intended for PROFIT, but certainly to cover costs and some profit from such a transaction.

Should he have given Kazcut1 an option or informed them of his intention to sell? And, why was he not able to offer them the property for the lesser amount? I am sure if Corvera had done that, then people might have completed more readily at the time. NOW, however, there are none of the luxury lifestyle facilities - as advertised in brochures....and they still expect people to complete for less than an average site which will always be below the marketed product?

What phase is your property on Kazcut1? And did you sign any extended agreement on your original contract? Do you know when it was sold? New owner or the old owners of Corvera sold it on at that price? Someone owes you an explanation.....

kazcut1 said:
Thursday, October 30, 2014 @ 11:14 AM

Our property was a off plan olmo 3 bed villa on phase 1 2005 not sure which agreement was signed as my partner delt with that side
I remember them pushing for the pool saying if we didn't do it then it would be impossible to have one in the future . This family brought it a few months ago and have put a pool in (strange thought there was a time limit )
I think now it's sold we probably have more chance of a refund or will they say the deposit off us plus the sale is still below the price guide .
Would have been nice to have been told

Also they did offer a apartment on roda golf for our deposit plus another 100 plus thousand euro

kazcut1 said:
Thursday, October 30, 2014 @ 11:26 AM

Has anyone got any orginal brouchers about corvera
I've not got mine 9 years on

mariadecastro said:
Thursday, October 30, 2014 @ 12:33 PM

In most cases those properties are transfered by developers in exchange of debts so that is what they are not offered to original buyers.

Liabilities attached to original contracts remain though despite the posterior transference

ads said:
Thursday, October 30, 2014 @ 9:17 PM

Two points to consider here Maria:
1). Where do contra legem rulings that fail to recognise developer breach fit into this equation Maria, where illegal actions remained unrecognised by the judiciary, such as any of the following: illegal extensions not notified to/authorised by the purchaser, no LFO provision at point of completion as per mutually agreed contract end date, no annexing of legal guarantee to the purchase contract, illegal guarantors (not recognised in Spain) specified in the original purchase contract, etc? Surely any action where the guarantor had failed to comply with Ley 57/68 in its entirety would not have rights to force completion would they? If so, this would make a mockery of purchasers' inalienable rights according to existing law, and would act as a classic example of failure to adhere to the principal of legal certainty wouldn't it?

2) Banks (involved in Posterior transference) would still have to remain accountable for their initial lack of control and failure to secure deposited monies and issuance of legal guarantees from the outset, thus respecting purchasers' inalienable rights according to law, wouldnt' they? Surely all those exposed to any of the above breaches (most notably lack of LFO as per mutually agreed contract end dates and illegal extensions) cannot be denied their INALIENABLE rights for return of those monies and cancellation rights, can they?

antifreeze said:
Thursday, October 30, 2014 @ 10:39 PM

The judiciary in many cases seems to have found in favour of local developers and ignored the facts - illegal transfers, poor contracts, annexing - extension of contracts disguised as 'gifts for loyalty' and no BGs - thus duped consumers without right to reply to any process.

Buyers have been criminalised for failure to comply with developers' demands and changes. The real culprits who manipulated, engineered, even transferred/sold liabilities with full knowledge, with trapped buyers who have had unfair rulings upheld by courts. Buyers seem to have lost their rights without application of logical rulings and laws by the judiciary. The breaches and proof exist BUT for some reason, the courts remain unaware (?) or choose to defy Spanish law, thus complicit in denying rights or even to be heard in courts.

How is this possible and acceptable in any EU legal system?

mariadecastro said:
Friday, October 31, 2014 @ 6:14 AM

Antifreeze:
I agree with your comments in regards to Murcia Courts. Defense of off plan buyers in regards of lack of ammenities in some developments there ( Corvera, Polaris...) has been a nightmare. We have our hopes at the Supreme Court.
I need to add though that despite slow, justice in rest of Spanish regions in regards to these disasters have been quite effectively and professionaly served.
Cheers
Maria

ads said:
Friday, October 31, 2014 @ 12:16 PM

Have there not been contra legem rulings that favour developers in these other regions Maria?

mariadecastro said:
Friday, October 31, 2014 @ 12:25 PM

Yes, ads. In my opinion,Provision 1 second of Law 57/68 has been, in some extent, unapplied. Now, the Supreme Court is about to define some important features of the liability which is expressed there.

ads said:
Friday, October 31, 2014 @ 12:48 PM

Surely what is required is clarification by the SC to ensure that those ALREADY exposed to these contra legem rulings (through no fault of their own) will not be exposed to subsequent enforcement action which would be in contravention of the rule of law (due to non recognition of ALL articles relating to this EXISTING law.)