Colds and Stuff?

Briando,

Taking your first paragraph.  There are many overrun contracts.  Mine was up May 2007 (August with the 3 months grace).   However,  I was made aware in the beginning of the legal process that there will come a point when a vote will be required as to which way you want to go, 'build' or 'money back'.  Because as you say, if they are refinanced and the build goes ahead, then it might be that the majority will simply carry out litigation (as we already were) to get our money back.   This was also pointed out as a problem with group action, as I got the feeling there can only be one vote per representative, but I would need to check that, but that was the initial feeling I got.

Second paragraph.  There would be a need for re-contracting to avoid what I mentioned above, and again this would only be the case if they are given the go ahead.  But again I would still be opting for my money back.  The feeling I have is that even if they are given the go ahead, they will not continue until enough people have signed the new contract to make it finacially viable for them to continue.

You see, I want my money back, but that can happen even if they are given the go ahead to continue, so at the moment either way is fine for me.  The litigation process I obviously want to avoid, but at least this way I can apply for costs, loss of earnings, interest etc.  So in the long run, it might actually work better this way.  But only when it's all over will I know best.

Regards,

Steve.

 

Hi Redman

Send me details of the vote you were asked to cast for build or money back...im amazed it was a choice you were given to make.

Just to clear things up about our society in Europe, if you choose to buy something you enter into a contract and money changes hands.  The item you pay for is delivered in contract terms or the contract is broken.  Re-negotiate by all means but its still a broken contract.

If someone says to you, after you have paid a deposit on a choice you have made,......either you have this or that on a democratic vote and its dependant along with votes of others, tell them to jump off a bridge.

You want what you are entitled to, not what is going to suit someone else.  When the day comes that a collective outcome is required it will be a decision made by the liquidator as a best dividend for creditors.......that day is a long way off and will be the end of the road.

 Dearest  Briando 
you lost the thread  there for a  wee minute the vote was just a figure of speech ie if in a group action people were asked to vote for what they want  there would only be one vote per representative ie lawyer not per creditor,    this has not happened  as yet and is just  a what if scenario ?  Dinae panic and put your reading  glasses on.  lol  all the best  JA


This message was last edited by julie anne on 7/13/2008.

This message was last edited by julie anne on 7/13/2008.

Redman  I read your post with interest do you think then it may have been beneficial to ask lawyers who and how many SJ clients they have on their books as one could end up in group litigation without even knowing it .  Therefor  deciding what action to take next could be an issue ie certain decisions could be put to the  vote of the group.
Which leads me to the question. Do our lawyers  have to tell us if they have a group of clients within the same litigation process and do they have to disclose what the desired outcome  of the majority of their clients is .I  would think not and  threrefor if someone wanted to take a a different course of action than the majority then they could incur higher legal costs than first quoted.

Julie Anne,

Thanks for clarifying what I said, 

It is an interesting scenario and am not sure of the answer, but might be worth seeking clarification.  My lawyer has always known our course of action.

He did say that group action does carry more weight, and possibly more cost effective, but I feel that if there was a split in the group then the lawyer would have to bring seperate cases to the court, which I would imagine is very possible and can imagine would be the likely outcome here.

He also said there would be a vote cast by each representative (which is why you need a lawyer if you want to have a say) as to which way the clients wish to proceed and I guess this would have a major bearing on the administrators decision.

Steve.

our lawyer has already advised us of the group action that they are taking and sent us a letter asking us for our preferred options. they are prepared to take multplie actions dependent upon the requirements of individuals and have already costed this out and given fixed prices. The majority however are in the IWMMB corner!!!

Thanks guys this is all very interesting and imformative I have not yet discussed this with my lawyer but will be asking tomorrow thanks again JA

Yep cheers Redman

Im glad i left me reading glasses in he car, it helped a bit...lol

Can we pool resources of the lawyers who have group actions?  On here or on the lawyer thread.  Julie ann, could you help out with that task at all?

Im thinking that several group actions, put together, could both save money and give added weight..?

And give an indication of the size of the IWMMB.

Brian

Not sure how to go about this as most have already signed up with lawyers and are commited.It may be of value to compile a list of all Lawyers acting for SJ clients if people want to share that info. Not sure how we could group together in joint group action or if it it would work in practice it may come to a point where anything will be worth a go  I will give it some thought. JA

Hi All

As far as any lawyer is concerned in the UK if any conflict of interest arises at the outset or if one becomes apparent at a later date then the lawyer should cease to act..
 
 

Christine, I don't know if you are a solicitor, what you say is correct in UK and under the laws and regulations in UK. 
Are you expecting the regulations and laws to be the same in Spain as in UK.
If you read through various threads, you will see that many people have problems because of their solicitor (so they claim) and the laws of the Country.

 

Hi everyone I thought ths might be of interest
I took this from the general forum on EOS on the developers thread.

Although criminal  law is complex and behavior that you think ought to be criminal could turn out not to be, we have in our Criminal Code and in many sentences quite a lot of examples about how Spanish law deals with developers refusing to pay funds back to buyers, when they don' t hand over houses in time.

Section 252 of the Spanish Criminal Code provides that a person who to the detriment of another misappropriates  or embezzles  money or all other property real or personal  received in deposit, custody or administration or by another obligation of return will be punished by imprisonment of up to six  years.

This section affects all  developers selling off-plan and receiving  monies before completion because they all are under an obligation to retain and deal with this funds in the way stated in section 1.2 of 57/1968 Act.

Section 1.2
All developers who sell  off-plan and receive any payment from buyers must deposit the funds into an  special account separately  of any other funds belonging to them. Such funds may be used only for payments linked to building costs.

By law the developer is not free to administer the funds received in relation to a development, he is a depositary and if he  wishes to draw from the guarantee account must be aware of  the compulsory use that is stated in Law.

Even if the developer were acquitted by a criminal court it doesn't mean he is not obligated to refund the monies since subsequently  a civil court could  declare the civil liability.
Our courts don't agree about if it is sufficient in order to qualify the offence to use the funds in unrelated development costs or if it is necessary animus lucrandi or intention of profiting.
We can distinguish between misappropriation strictu sensu which implies adding the funds to the defendant personal assets and dealing with the funds detrimenting the interests of depositors

Some judgements of our Superior Court  to illustrate this issue

 
SSTS  17  22 Oct 1998  'It is not required the benefit of the criminal but the economical detriment to the plaintiff'

brianmags
R4 556 
I definatley want my house

Hi Brian

Thank you for that last posting.

I had some advice of the notion of the law, without the fuller explanation you have found!!!!  thanks, and have been fairly optomistic about the Albatera site.  The reason being its not developed at all so the deposits must still be easy to account for.  the biggest concern for me was the amount of 'preliminary 'work  done like moving palm trees, clearing land, building show homes etc etc.  Its difficult to know exactly what the law would recognise as payments relating to building costs. 

Then there are the depositors who have moved to other sites, or been paid out in full before the administration started.  The deposits to these people have effectively been full refunds.....then any payments relating to build costs become shared out between less depositors left.......which is part of the subsidy to other sites that i have been banging on about.   Maybe that explains it a little better now.  Its conceivable the deposits paid back to some investors have been on the proviso that its re-invested in other developments.  

For instance.....if there were 500 depositors on Albatera, sharing a cost of 500,000 euros pre build cost....its 1000 euros each to come from the deposit accounts...thats manageable

If by the time the re-payments and, moving around and re-locating etc has finished there are only 50 depositors left...we pay then 10,000 euros each....the bulk of the investment has been transferred to another site, for the benefit of someone else.

If thats the case then thats when the lawyers become very neccesary and the exploration of case law from the laws you mention get to come into play.

I am given to understand this is a concern.  If that has taken place then of course there is a personal liability to the owners of the company (that has to be proven).  It would hold things up though.

If one company goes under and the other survives, i understand there will be many questions of the movement of finance immediately prior to the administration.  I understand that many family and friends of San Jose directors were investors in Albatera, for example, all the san jose dealings will have some scrutiny by the administrators.  Its a shame you didnt get chance to ask questions like these when you were out there Brian .

Thanks......i want my money back and dont want to donate it to anyone else

.

Dear All,
The issue around the deposits and a special account was raised. Please read the meeting report on the SARC site.

All the best
I want my House
Tony

Hi dear all

The report has a point K which condensed down says.

The deposit money is in an audited account in the public domain.
The money has been invested and is acountable.

What is really being said here?????

What is meant by invested is.....and this is listed in the report as 'was mentioned' and 'other expenses included' 

Spent 12m euros on bank guarantee bond
Spent  on bank gaurantees to the ayuntamiento
Spent on taxes
Spent on clearing land
Spent on Purchasing land
Spent on 'and other things'

But the inference is that it is clear where all the money has been spent and 'invested'
In other words..............its been spent....why not just say so, dont insult my intelligence.

If its audited....print the audited accounts not the single sentence that tells me you dont know what is going on...come on now.


Brian

Brian,
It isnot for us to print the accounts. We asked about the money you have the reply. Please do not take it out on the messenger and  you left out a few bits. People only need to click the link above for all to read  the report in  full posted on the newsletter area.

All the best to you

Tony

This message was last edited by TonyMal on 7/17/2008.

Tony

It was you who took the decision to report on the accounts and twas you who decided to place the words on here that countered my concerns..as though it was something really informative and worth saying.

The inference you put on the accounts being audited is part of the report.  The reporting on the audited accounts is not factual, accurate or informative.  By saying its not your place to place audited accounts on here or print them, dont refer to them then...you make it sound like you know what your talking about, which is not the case is it.

In fact i will go further than that.....in my opinion it is misleading and extremely dummed down and could be harmfull to anyone who misguidedly thinks their money is in a safe account.  

And............t is definately on the site in full detail, and the detail it consists of is just what i said...plus a few more words...all of which add up to....what i said plus....some more rubbish.

Yours very sincerely
Brian

Hi Brian,
i think you forget who wrote the majority of the report and who you insult.  And what is being reported is the reply to the questions. Sorry you do not like the replies but do not take out your angst on us. We expected to find confirmation of the speciall account that Anna M had said existed but we did not, just the one with 12 million Euros in it.

All the best.   
I want my House
Tony    R17 18

 

This message was last edited by TonyMal on 7/17/2008.

Tony

Please stop spreading the blame around or avoiding the points.

Im not insulting anybody...just taking issue with you.   If you are big enough to make comments about my questions then try and answer them, not just run away by saying im insulting somebody, or by saying i didnt say this or i dont like the replies.

What i am really saying is the replies dont hold water in places, they dont stack up, they dont make sense....and you have placed them on your website and you have tried to appease me by quoting them.

If i shoot holes in some of it its no good running away to hide is it...........try and find some answers...thats the best thing to do.

Im trying to find some common ground and trying to get to the heart of things, im not really into the sugar coatings and appeasements......i think you can gather there are more questions to ask of SJ and you might have the chance to ask them.......it would be a shame not to