{"id":357,"date":"2008-04-28T20:07:31","date_gmt":"2008-04-28T19:07:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lawbird.com\/wordpress\/?p=357"},"modified":"2014-05-05T19:06:22","modified_gmt":"2014-05-05T18:06:22","slug":"developer-penarroya-sentenced-to-refund-one-million-euros-for-eleven-dwellings-at-la-reserva-de-marbella","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lawbird.com\/wordpress\/developer-penarroya-sentenced-to-refund-one-million-euros-for-eleven-dwellings-at-la-reserva-de-marbella\/","title":{"rendered":"Developer Pe\u00f1arroya Sentenced to refund One million euros for Eleven Dwellings at La Reserva de Marbella"},"content":{"rendered":"

El Mundo Newspaper – 27-4-2008 (Original in PDF)\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n

In the sentence ruled last 22nd of April to which newspaper\u00a0El Mundo<\/strong>\u00a0has access to, the judge Mrs Dolores Ruiz Jim\u00e9nez\u00a0revoked the eleven Private Purchase Contracts\u00a0<\/strong>that the plaintiffs signed with the developer between the 4th of July and the 19th of December 2003.All of the plaintiffs who will now be refunded are of British and Irish citizenship. They are nine couples which signed jointly and two other persons that signed individually. The developer gave them a deadline to complete on the eleven properties without the mandatory Licence of First Occupancy required under Spanish law.<\/p>\n

The down payments made by the eleven plaintiffs range from 66.581\u02c6 up to 90.319\u02c6. To said amounts one must add the accrued legal interests which range from 8.300\u02c6 up to 12.478\u02c6. The developer\u2019s legal representative may appeal against the ruling of the judge. However, legal sources have confirmed the plaintiffs will execute provisionally the ruling so that they may start to obtain their refunds which they had made as down payment on the eleven properties.
\nCompletion<\/strong><\/p>\n

The problems stem back in 2006 when the purchasers were sent by the developer a registered communication by means of a Notary public to complete on the properties on a given date. They would have to pay the balance which amounted to 70% of the value of the properties. Some purchasers warned the developer that he was in\u00a0breach of contract<\/strong>\u00a0as the properties were not being delivered on time as per the terms set forth in their Private Purchase Contracts. The developer was meant to hand over the properties in May 2005. Other purchasers decided not to appear before the appointed notary on said completion date due to the breaches of contract La Reserva de Marbella had incurred in.<\/p>\n

In February 2006 the developer requested from Marbella town hall to be granted the\u00a0Licence of First Occupancy<\/strong>. Three months after, in May of that same year, La Reserva de Marbella developer thought he had obtained said LFO by means of an administrative legal figure known as \u201cAdministrative Silence\u201d. In June 2006 the developer notified the purchasers giving them a deadline to complete before a Spanish notary public.<\/p>\n

Before filing the law suit, the affected parties contacted the developer through their chosen Marbella law firm,\u00a0Lawbird Legal Services<\/strong>, by means of a burofax to clarify the legal status of said development with the warning that they would revoke their contracts if it wasn\u2019t clarified. This registered communication went unanswered by the developer. This forced the purchaser\u2019s lawyer to cancel their contracts because their dwellings lacked the mandatory<\/p>\n

Licence of First Occupation<\/strong><\/p>\n

Moreover, a town hall resolution existed issued by the \u201cComisi\u00f3n Gestora\u201d in which it stated that the LFO\u00a0had not been granted by \u201cAdministrative Silence\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0to developer Pe\u00f1arroya for La Reserva de Marbella. The 29th of May 2006 a local legal report had already included La Reserva de Marbella\u2019s Building Licence as one of many which were undergoing an administrative process that was reviewing it, being one of many Building Licences that were revoked by the Junta de Andaluc\u00eda.<\/p>\n

The ruling delivers justice<\/strong><\/p>\n

At the Marbella law firm,\u00a0Lawbird Legal Services<\/strong>, which acted on behalf of the eleven plaintiffs in a class action law suit against La Reserva de Marbella, the ruling was received with satisfaction<\/strong>. The ruling pends a possible appeal by the developer\u2019s lawyer to the Audiencia Provincial which would make it definitive.<\/p>\n

Lawbird\u2019s<\/strong>\u00a0lawyers have undertaken the weight of the legal procedure under the supervision of the head lawyer\u00a0Mr Luis Fernando Gonz\u00e1lez Ord\u00f3\u00f1ez<\/strong>. The purchasers contacted both solicitors tangled in the legal predicament they were in as a result of Marbella\u2019s\u00a0 general urbanistic chaos due to the lack of legal planning security.<\/p>\n

At another M\u00e1laga court, earlier on this month,\u00a0Lawbird won another ruling against La Reserva de Marbella<\/strong>\u00a0which affects only one purchaser. She will obtain a\u00a0full refund of \u20ac85,000 which she paid over<\/strong>\u00a0to developer Pe\u00f1arroya at La Reserva de Marbella. Until now the developer in this case has not paid any funds over to this plaintiff. Three La Reserva de Marbella\u00a0properties which had been legally frozen by her lawyer<\/strong>\u00a0to secure her stage payments will now beexecuted\u00a0<\/strong>by him to obtain the refund.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis ruling is yet not firm pending a possible appeal, yet it is a professional satisfaction for our law firm but above all it delivers satisfaction to our clients, all of them British and Irish\u201d, was declared by Lawbird\u2019s solicitors \u201cat long last Spanish Justice acknowledges they were right all along. It is not admissible, as the developer strived to do, to deliver a property without the mandatory legal and urbanistic requirements for a first occupancy\u201d.<\/p>\n

In many of these cases for the plaintiffs they were their life\u2019s savings or their largest family financial commitment. For this reason to those affected \u201cit is a great satisfaction to verify that it is worthwhile filing a law suit before a Spanish Court of Justice, even bearing in mind the associated fees, expenses and time it requires, taking into consideration you are a foreigner\u201d.<\/p>\n

Lawbird<\/strong>\u00a0upholds that \u201cthe Costa del Sol cannot be left at the mercy of a handful of very powerful developers, as has been the case in Marbella, undermining the good image of Spain abroad, specially in the United Kingdom and Ireland, whose citizens have traditionally been attracted by the lifestyle in our coasts\u201d.<\/p>\n

This Marbella law firm is specialized in defending those affected by real estate and planning problems.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

First Court number one of M\u00e1laga, sentenced the Spanish company La Reserva de Marbella, S.A. headed by the well-known developer Mr Crist\u00f3bal Pe\u00f1arroya to refund almost one million euros to a total of eleven plaintiffs in a class action law suit. These purchasers deposited stage payments for eleven off-plan properties at the development known as La Reserva de Marbella. This development of detached dwellings is currently illegal as it lacks the mandatory Licence of First Occupation.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[56],"tags":[60],"class_list":["post-357","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-lawbird-in-the-media","tag-luis-fernando-gonzalez-ordonez"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawbird.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/357","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawbird.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawbird.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawbird.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawbird.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=357"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawbird.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/357\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":362,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawbird.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/357\/revisions\/362"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawbird.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=357"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawbird.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=357"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawbird.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=357"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}