{"id":675,"date":"2012-02-12T12:33:44","date_gmt":"2012-02-12T11:33:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lawbird.com\/wordpress\/?p=675"},"modified":"2014-05-05T19:06:06","modified_gmt":"2014-05-05T18:06:06","slug":"la-reserva-de-marbella-s-a-suffers-new-setback","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lawbird.com\/wordpress\/la-reserva-de-marbella-s-a-suffers-new-setback\/","title":{"rendered":"La Reserva de Marbella S.A. suffers another setback"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>A recent Court judicial pronouncement by Court of First Instance 17 in Malaga tightens the noose on La Reserva de Marbella. Although the reading of the ruling can be tedious, save for if you are the claimant , the acting lawyers (us) or an avid reader of boring Court rulings, it is remarkable in that when typing up his conclusions the Judge, Mr. Antonio Valero Gonz\u00e1lez, <strong>has managed to extend the length of one sentence, with no full-stops, to\u20265 full pages <\/strong>(<a href=\"https:\/\/www.lawbird.com\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/02\/LaReservaMarbella.pdf\">please help me find one (PDF)<\/a>)!!\u00a0\u00a0The findings of the Court can be summed up as follows:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Older case law where a party was to be found deliberately obstructing fulfillment <strong>is now replaced by a less severe breach of contract<\/strong>: the standard now in off-plan property construction is one where the breach <em>frustrates the legitimate aspirations of the buyers, preventing them from reaching the economical aims pursued.<\/em><\/li>\n<li>La Reserva de Marbella S.A. <strong>obtained the license of occupancy on the 1st of June 2010<\/strong>, and on the 28th of October 2011 the Administrative Court 2 in Malaga ratified the right of the developer to retain the license, a ruling that is not firm. Mr. Valero points to the irrelevance of this item, given that <strong>termination was instigated well before<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>High litigation activity on this development has meant that <strong>La Reserva de Marbella S.A. has created case law of its own<\/strong>, in the Malaga Courts. The judging magistrate concludes that an almost identical court case ruled on the 14.10.10 already deals with the issues surrounding the delay: <strong>lack of proper or legitimate planning compliance<\/strong>. Quoting the cited ruling, the magistrate delivers a fatal blow: <em>it is clear that the defendant and seller is obliged to deliver a property in an able condition, to be used and lived in, being obliged to adapt the construction to current planning regulations to the extent that, if this is not in place, the property is not susceptible of being occupied and in fact, could even be demolished.<\/em><\/li>\n<li><strong>The sale of a property without an occupancy license represents a serious breach of contract<\/strong>, and <em>property buyers are not<\/em><em>forced to sustain the vicissitudes of an administrative nature i.e. build license, that was only achieved 5 years after completion was agreed to.<\/em><\/li>\n<li>Counsel for La Reserva de Marbella S.A. argued, not without reason, <strong>that obtaning the license of occupancy was not instrumental in attaining full legal compliance<\/strong>, an allegation based on two Supreme Court rulings of the 10 of October of 1987 and 1989. Luckily, Magistrates at this very High Court in Madrid also get replaced and <strong>antiquated viewpoints also get replaced by more modern opinion<\/strong> (Supreme Court 24<sup>th<\/sup> of May 1991, 16<sup>th<\/sup> of March 1995, 28<sup>th<\/sup> of May 1996 and 23<sup>rd<\/sup> of October 1997).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Now straight on to the\u00a0tricky\u00a0stage of enforcing the ruling!<\/p>\n<p><em><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A recent Court judicial pronouncement by Court of First Instance 17 in Malaga tightens the noose on La Reserva de Marbella. Although the reading of the ruling can be tedious, save for if you are the claimant , the acting lawyers (us) or an avid reader of boring Court rulings, it is remarkable in that [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[79,5,45,66,80],"class_list":["post-675","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-litigation","tag-bank-guarantees","tag-la-reserva-de-marbella","tag-license-of-occupancy","tag-litigation-2","tag-marbella"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawbird.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/675","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\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawbird.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=675"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawbird.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/675\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1293,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawbird.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/675\/revisions\/1293"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawbird.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=675"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawbird.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=675"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawbird.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=675"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}