{"id":363,"date":"2008-02-28T20:11:20","date_gmt":"2008-02-28T19:11:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lawbird.com\/wordpress\/?p=363"},"modified":"2014-05-05T19:06:22","modified_gmt":"2014-05-05T18:06:22","slug":"malaga-law-courts-have-more-than-200-litigation-procedures-under-way-against-developer-aifos","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lawbird.com\/wordpress\/malaga-law-courts-have-more-than-200-litigation-procedures-under-way-against-developer-aifos\/","title":{"rendered":"Malaga Law Courts have more than 200 litigation procedures under way against developer AIFOS"},"content":{"rendered":"

The files on one of the most prominent developers of the province occupy stacks at Malaga\u2019s law courts. According to information accessed by this newspaper, Malaga\u2019s law courts are handling well over 200 law suits against developer\u00a0AIFOS<\/strong>\u00a0for breach in the delivery date of the properties which are the object of the purchase contracts. Many Spanish and foreigners have purchased property of this developer whose developments dot the coastline.<\/p>\n

The rulings to which this newspaper has had access to have\u00a0condemned the developer to refund the stage payments to it\u2019s clients, plus the legal interests accrued on said amounts, reaching even in some cases the staggering figure of \u02c6329,000<\/strong>. Albeit the First Ruling Courts number 1 and 2 have actually gone further and\u00a0have ruled that the developer must award the plaintiffs with moral damages as well<\/strong>. Magistrates have understood the \u201canguish and impotence\u201d of all those people who have fallen foul of the developers malpractice, as it appears in the judge\u2019s ruling.<\/p>\n

Deadlines<\/h3>\n

Rulings from 2006 through to 2007 indicate that the \u201cdwellings have not been delivered\u201d, when in the contracts it specifically stipulates that the works and construction are to be finished in a deadline no longer than 20 months as from the time \u201cthe arquitect signs the acta de replanteo\u201d. This is what it is specified in a ruling dated from December 2007 by the First Ruling Court number 2 , which condemned AIFOS Arquitectura y Promociones Inmobiliarias S.A.\u00a0to pay to the plaintiff the amount of \u02c6329,508 euros as principal as well as legal interests<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

In other occasions, \u201cnot even the License of First Occupation has been obtained\u201d. And so it is indicated in another ruling from the First Ruling Court number 9, of last year, that highlights that the client purchased \u201ctrusting that in approximately two and a half years as from the signing of the private purchase contract, he would have his home delivered\u201d. The judge is conscious that the developer \u201ccannot possibly sell a property and make use of the stage payments handed over by the purchaser without establishing some minimum guarantees as to the delivery deadline of the dwelling which is being purchased\u201d.\u00a0In this ruling the magistrate ordered the developer to pay \u02c692,742 euros to the plaintiff.<\/strong><\/p>\n

However, as is highlighted in another ruling of a judge of a First Ruling Court in relation to an appeal made by\u00a0AIFOS<\/strong>\u00a0lawyers, the developer \u201cmust undertake the responsibility not only of this erroneous and misleading information provided, but also of the content of the contractual clauses that the developer itself worded\u2026\u201d. The ruling of the judge overruled\u00a0AIFOS<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0lawyer\u2019s appeal and confirmed the prior ruling which established the obligation of\u00a0AIFOS<\/em>\u00a0to pay 3.900 euros to the plaintiff.<\/p>\n

The law firm CYC Asesores defends many purchasers affected by\u00a0AIFOS<\/strong>\u00a0dealings, especially in Fuengirola, M\u00e1laga and Rinc\u00f3n de la Victoria. One of their lawyers has assured that AIFOS has a substantial portfolio of assets and that the developer had compelled its clients to complete on dwellings \u201cwhen they had been declared illegal\u201d. Moreover, he has confirmed the same data provided by an AIFOS spokesperson which has been queried by this newspaper and assured that \u201dmany of these problems are now being solved by offering clients to swap over to otherAIFOS<\/strong>\u00a0developments\u201d.<\/p>\n

Uncertainty<\/h3>\n

Judges are taking increasingly into account the rulings which award moral damages to all those affected.\u00a0By way of moral damages magistrates have awarded compensations of up to \u02c614,000, \u02c625,000 and \u02c635,500<\/strong>, alleging that \u201cthe plaintiffs had to endure sufferment and uncertainty\u201d. In other occasions it has been awarded \u201cso as to help to withstand the pain and anguish inflicted by those fallen foul of an unjust, abusive and illegal way of acting carried out by another\u201d.<\/p>\n

Moreover, First Ruling Courts have also proceeded to freeze assets and rights of the developer. Witness of such is the law firm\u00a0Lawbird Legal Services<\/strong>, which confirms having frozen \u201cplenty of assets\u201d, and thus has secured that his clients obtain their refund.\u00a0This law firm defends purchasers which have had problems with AIFOS<\/strong>, mainly by dwellings which have not been constructed yet.<\/p>\n

This newspaper has confirmed that out-of-court-settlements have been reached after some purchasers sued following a criminal procedure.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Various rulings oblige the developer to refund its clients stage payments as well as compensate them for moral damages. Company sources assure that many cases are been solved by offering the clients to swap over to other developments. <\/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":[],"class_list":["post-363","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-lawbird-in-the-media"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawbird.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/363","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=363"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawbird.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/363\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":368,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawbird.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/363\/revisions\/368"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawbird.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=363"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawbird.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=363"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawbird.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=363"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}