Antonio Flores’ Blog

Is Spanish off-plan property development dead? I would think so, considering the diverse value judges give to misleading advertising by property developers and, consequently, an increasing lack of trust in an already damaged sector.

The story goes like this:

Recently, a property developer in the north of Spain was sentenced to 21 months imprisonment for falsely advertising, on a billboard, that the urbanization he was developing would offer gardens, swimming pool and a children’s playground. Additionally, he had also indicated that the development would include adequate sewage infrastructure, water treatment plant, lighting and sidewalks…when, according to the sentencing court, he had no intention of providing such facilities.

Yes, a tough ruling by 3 tough magistrates who imposed a 21^st century version of the Talion Law, exacting retribution to the defaulter in the most strict way possible, under Spanish law.

In an almost identical case by Court of First Instance in Murcia number 13, the Judge dealing with a dispute over unfinished facilities in Corvera Golf and Country Club accepted the following:

• That the construction of the promised 5-start hotel, to be run by Devere, was never started.
• That there are no, as recognized by the defendant, commercial centers, restaurants luxury hotel, health center nor a spa.
• That the promotional literature is fully binding, citing several Supreme Court rulings.

But, in stark contrast with the ruling that saw the Galician developer almost having to do time for fraud (received a suspended sentence), the Corvera Golf & Country Club developers, who had not built (and had no intention of doing so, as it happens), among others, a 5-star hotel, even though it had been offered, enjoyed a favourable ruling as the claimants’ civil claim for contractual default was dismissed.

And so, the question that remains to be answered: what is it that made this judge rule in such a manner?

Succinctly speaking, that the buyers did not prove that they had relied on the promised facilities to sign the contract! The judge adds that

“…the answer to the claim has to necessarily be negative for, on the one side, the contracts did not stipulate a deadline for building the promised amenities and, on the other, the buyer does not prove, in any way, that the concrete construction of the 5-start hotel and commercial center had, when exchanging contracts, such an intense relevance that it would justify pulling out the transaction should the amenities not be built…in fact, the golf course was indeed completed and the construction of such element was, as evidenced, the only element that was contractually agreed to.” 

And to further justify his anomalous decision, he supported the developer’s argument that the 4^th phase had not been completed, by which time presumably the hotel and other amenities would have been finished. What he did not feel relevant was the fact that Corvera developers had previously undertaken to the following, in respect to Phase IV:  

“By reference to the main plot number 3832 Corvera Golf & Country Club reserves its rights for a period no less than 100 YEARS, to build the FOURTH PHASE of the community, which entails, in the event of this happening within the stipulated time, the proportional redistribution of the service charges being paid by other phases within the community.

Your honour, 100 years seems an awful lot of time to wait for the 5-star hotel, would you not agree?

An appeal has already been lodged.

Antonio Flores Litigation, Property Corvera Golf and Country Club, litigation against spanish developers

There comes a time in the Spanish off-plan property development fiasco when the robberies, theft, misappropriation, fraud, call it what you may, stop being a surprise…it merely becomes a matter of measuring the size of the outrage.

€4,500,000 is the size of the outrage in this case, which is the combined sum paid by loyal off-plan property customers, through a local law firm, to finance a development that was to be built by Proyectos Antele/Costa Palatinum, in Murcia. In the end, the story repeats itself: nothing gets built, the monies disappear through a network of group of companies and when asked, the developer claims that the market has hit him hard.

And there is the statement of the account of Proyectos Antele/Costa Palatinum to show the trail of the fast disappearing monies.

From a legal point of view, the matter unfolded as follows:

• The sole director of this company received four and a half million from trusting buyers, mostly from the United Kingdom, took out a mortgage loan to buy the land (€13,000,000).

• For reasons unknown to us, even though it seems that he probably ran out of money, the development is halted indefinitely.

• Faced with a deluge of claims, the developer chose to do one of two: either file for voluntary receivership or offer alternative properties. He chose option number two, a development in none other than Hugo Chavez´s Venezuela (not difficult to guess how that went down…).

• Caja Murcia, the lender and the guaranteeing savings banks, in an action of unsurprising lack of solidarity and neglecting of contractual and social obligations, tries to wriggle out of responsibility; and all of it, in spite of having provided a bank guarantee in 2007 which they “unilaterally cancelled” in 2008 and now renege on, and having paid back, at least, on one occasion.

• Having the matter been submitted to criminal courts, as evidence of criminal activity was mounting, we requested the developer to give a statement, which he did, but to state that an unprecedented crisis had hit him so hard that he was unable to develop this project. As for the monies, his answer was that he had used it all to… move earth around the building site (all he could prove he did). And unworthy-of-customers-trust Caja Murcia, after confessing to have refunded at least 1 deposit, -by mistake- according to their words, said they were really never underwriting this development.

• The Judge, seemingly more comfortable dealing with purse snatchers, shoplifters and other instances of public nuisance, was hopelessly out of her depth and consequently resolved that justice was best served through the civil courts. According to her, intent to defraud had not been proven, even though the Supreme Court in Spain states that intent in a misappropriation case exists where someone diverts monies knowingly.

• The State Prosecutor, presumably not dissimilar to the sort that makes the headlines in Spain because of attaining this post of utmost responsibility at the silly age of 25, supported the shelving of the case on grounds that no evidence of fraud was produced: €4,500,000 of stolen monies seemed not a purse big enough for him…all of it in two lines.

• The acting conveyance lawyers have washed their hands of this hold-up.

• The criminal matter has now been referred to the Appeal Court. A separate civil case against Caja Murcia is now under way.

Documents

• Proyectos Antele Case: Court Requests Bank Statement from Bank  (PDF ~990 Kb)
• Proyectos Antele Case: Prosecutor Writ Requesting Dismissal (PDF)
• Proyectos Antelee Case: Criminal Case Dismissed by Judge

Antonio Flores Litigation Caja Murcia, Costa Palatinum, litigation against spanish developers, Proyectos Antele S.L.

It is not unusual for the build up of a property fiasco to start like this:

… at a glittering awards ceremony held at the London Marriot in Grosvenor Square on Friday 4th of November, The Harrial Group representing the Las Torrentas Development won the best architecture (Whole Development) in the Bentley International Property Awards- the world’s biggest and most important property event”

From: http://www.lastorrentas.com/

It then gathers momentum with abundant advertorial news articles where the development receives the highest praises for being the best of its kind…on the drawing board.

The proponents of Las Torrentas, a 150 home development in the Spanish countryside town of Calasparra, The Harrial Group S.L. were directors Linda and Andrew Jones, a couple from Abergavenny, South Wales. And so excited they were that they convinced the mayor of this small agricultural town, if persuasion was at all required, to meet Abergavenny Town Council with a view to establishing a new twinning relationship between the Spanish and Welsh towns.

And then the Jones’, in a fit of hysterical excitement probably fuelled by the sums of unsecured deposits that were being transferred to their accounts by trusting purchasers, and the underserved and silly Bentley award, got confident and wrote a letter stating, among other things, that “about 15 years ago, when my husband Andrew and I started investing in property, we were shocked by the low standards of some developers”

Well, 15 years on, shocked-turned-shocking Andrew and Linda Jones have done a runner with other people’s money and are keeping a low profile, hiding presumably in Abergavenny.

Due diligence carried out on the development reveals the following:

1. The Harrial Group Spain S.L. never had planning permission on the plot(s), and yet they confirmed that completion would take place on the first six months of 2008. On the 6^th of May 2006 a public announcement on the official local gazette declared a period of 30 days for submission of allegations in respect of the proposed Las Torrentas project, indicating that once this stage is over, a report on ecological impact assessment will be drawn up with a view to determine the convenience of approving the project and if positive, the conditions under which it is to be carried out. The project has now been indefinitely shelved.
2. The Harrial Group Spain S.L. never provided bank guarantees to their customers. Clearly, when the funds were taken by the developer, he knew or should or could have known that the probability of the project stalling was very high, and yet chose to exchange contracts, request payment and fail to provide a bank guarantee.
3. The Harrial Group Spain S.L. has never filed company accounts with the Companies House (Alicante), since it was first created (!), which is indicative of business malpractice and lack of activity.
4. The Harrial Group Spain S.L. entry with the Companies House has been cancelled due to not having submitted tax returns, with date 19/07/2001, which is indicative of business malpractice and lack of activity.
5. Press and media: What dealings did the Jones’ have with the Calasparra Town Hall are unknown, but a payment of €160,000 was made so that they would reclassify enough land to build 150 villas in an area considered of high ecological value  given the presence of river rats, partridges and other animals as well as local agricultural land.
6. And what about the development plot? All we have found is half acre of arable land suitable for…rice-growing.

Conclusions to be drawn from this:

• The Jones’, infamously advised by local lawyers, have misappropriated others peoples monies and could face prison terms in application of current jurisprudence where a property developer has not guaranteed the down payment nor has offered a refund.
• Stay well away from Bentley International Property Awards awardees, just in case.
• Always have a disclaimer opportunistically stating that “we do not hold responsibility for any errors and we cannot be held reliable directly or indirectly for any loss whatsoever”. You can then add, for full protection, something along the lines of “we are entitled to take your monies and run, and shall not be held responsible for not looking back”.

Antonio Flores Litigation, Property Las Torrentas, Linda and John Andrews, litigation against spanish developers, The Harrial Group S.L

Try to guess what is it that the following have in common: an electrical company from Alicante, a cement subcontractor from Valencia, a real estate company from the Balearics, the Spanish Inland Revenue, the Spanish Social Security, 6 banks and 65 employees (2 of which guard an empty plot), on the one side, and 150 consumers that were hoping to acquire Spanish off-plan property on the other.

You guessed right: they are all registered with the courts on occasion of a voluntary company administration arrangement of a large Alicante-based property developer, San José Construcciones, hoping to perhaps get paid some money back over the course of a number of years.

The above scenario, however normal it may appear to be these days, hides a fundamental legal flaw that brings into question, once again, a legal system that has routinely failed to protect those who deserved the utmost protection: consumers.

Such flaw can be inferred from the controversial fact that the first group of creditors are hoping to get paid with the monies of the second group, the buyers, who should have had their deposits bank-guaranteed or insured pursuant to a Franco time law, the Ley 1968/57 Act, that was specifically enacted to avoid the situation they are now in.

In this case-study the irony (or irritation) is that BBVA, the second Spanish bank in size, is queuing up to try to grab a chunk of the money they are supposed to have been guaranteeing in the first place, since they provided a collective bank guarantee to underwrite deposits on a 120-unit development, deposits on which they profited handsomely for the developer’s mortgage and various commissions were being paid out of these. Crazily enough, this bank will only agree to “voluntarily” comply with its mandatory obligation after some arm-twisting, which involves lawyers and legal action.

Another surprising aspect of this all is the fact that criminal case-law states that no developer can use consumers’ down payments for anything else but building the contractually agreed property, and this excludes real estate commissions, admin staff salaries, pocket money…etc. As there is not one brick on the plot, helping consumers get their monies back should be a priority of any property developer, particularly where many lawyers have found that the criminal route can render results (many developers are serving prison terms for this), not the least where the developer has broken the law so blatantly.

Financially ailing developers are probably too traumatized by what has happened and can only hope the market will recover one day (and that lawyers will not press too hard). On the contrary banks shirking their legal, and ethical, responsibilities towards trusting property buyers (Spanish and foreign alike) has to now come to an end, particularly where abundant bank-guarantee case law is invariably favouring consumers and banks are seemingly getting unlimited funding from the Spanish State.

—

Adaptation of the post originally written for the Olive Press – The Banks Are to Blame.

Antonio Flores Litigation, Property Bank Guarantees in Spain, BBVA, Ley 1968/57, litigation against spanish developers, San José Construcciones

Since getting involved in legal action pertaining to unfinished-or-never-started-developments (e.g. by Ochando S.A., Promociones Eurohouse S.L. and Grupo San José Construcciones e Inversiones S.A.), one thing that I have found rather incomprehensible, from the perspective of a law firm actively pursuing the return of off-plan deposits, which should have been placed “in escrow” or backed by a bank guarantee, is the inconsistent and conflicting information on points of law that is being circulated by all manner of participants (lawyers, developers, group actions, banks, internet forums etc.).

But aside from the many interpretations, one can give to whether a credit should be ordinary, privileged or none at all, within the receivership/insolvency proceedings, or whether you should have terminated your contract on, before or after the developer did some or other action through the mercantile courts (all of which baffles me significantly), or that you are, or aren’t, or perhaps may be entitled to 40, 50 or 60% of your deposit in a number of years to come, what is clear to me is one thing: a consumer’s deposit for a property in, say, La Fortuna Golf is not and never to be used to pay for a topographical surveyor’s outstanding invoice on, say, Residencial San Pedro del Pinatar, looking after the salary of some night guard at Residencial San Pedro or more annoyingly, a plumber to fix some piping problem at the mansion of a company director.

Property developing companies have two options when handling off-plan buyers’ deposits: either keeping them in safe custody and not use them save for the needs of the specific development, and if not used return them fully, or provide a bank guarantee: there are no more options. Dragging bona fide consumers through a receivership procedure alongside electrical suppliers, cement subcontractors, real estate agents, the Spanish Social Security or the Spanish Inland Revenue seems not the right thing to do, particularly where it is the deposits of off-plan buyers who are earmarked to satisfy the debt of all others, related or not to the development in question.

Current case law does not envisage any other use for those funds, certainly not have them used for purposes not allowed to by law. Which means that these developers should be, in my opinion, encouraging, guiding and assisting off-plan property buyers in cashing bank guarantees to precisely avoid the aggravation of their already difficult situation, i.e. the transformation of these civil disputes (contractual default) to an action for criminal swindle and misappropriation, which entails serving time, particularly on those developments where nothing has been built (on others with a certain percentage built, advice would have to be on a case-by-case basis).

Antonio Flores Legal Practise, Litigation Grupo San José Construcciones e Inversiones S.A, La Fortuna Golf, litigation against spanish developers, Ochando Golf, Promociones Eurohouse, Residencial San Pedro del Pinatar

Reading the Times yesterday, I spotted a funny short article written by David Robertson and Deborah Haynes about the British Army’s SA-80 assault rifle. According to the paper, it has been upgraded several times but its long history of problems has led the military to christen it “the civil servant”, because it does not work and cannot be fired.

This quote came to mind when being asked for a second opinion in respect of the case of Urbanizadora Costa Palatinum/Proyectos Antele, another failed project by a developer which I can group with many others that dot the costas and which I dub the “civil swindlers”, because they get paid from you to do something, they do nothing, and there is little prospect of realistically getting any funds back, since they have no equity on their assets and no interest whatsoever in refunding, even though the funds should be in some bank account (with Proyectos Antele, in Venezuela it would appear).

As 30 or so purchasers are being dragged around civil courts pointlessly (for this developer now says he has none of the monies), and considering that nothing has been built on a plot they already owned prior to exchanging contracts, as part of my legal inquest into the death of the development, I would like to ask the developers one straight question: where is the dosh matey?
To not make this post too long, I will quote some examples why Spanish top judges are in disagreement of the activities carried out by developers who do just that (i.e. take money, not build, spend money elsewhere and blame the market) and who are upgraded, from the term “civil swindlers”, to a more adequate “criminal misapropriators”.

Antonio Flores Litigation, Property, Scams bank guarantees, Bank Guarantees in Spain, litigation against spanish developers, Ocean View Properties, Ricardo Miranda, spanish developers

It is once again the opportunistic intuition of few: with the increasing number of property scandals in Spain, particularly those relating to failed off-plan investments, we are seeing how the legal profession is being invaded by so-called property action groups, which have started orchestrating aggressive and unethical campaigns of client poaching throughout the web and other platforms.

Among others, I can cite Spanish Property Action Group, Finca Parcs, Bulgaria-Property-Action-Group, Ramirez and Ramirez, organized and managed by non-legal professionals who cross pretty much every line when it comes to legal solicitation. The following prohibitions are flouted with ease by the below groups:

1. Payment of referral fees: The first “irregularity” is blatant: these groups are selling legal services when they are not lawyers. This means, in practical terms, that the lawyers working for or with them are incurring in the illegal practice of setting up referral fee  agreements, more ordinarily called “kick-backs”. The Spanish Legal Professional Rules and Regulations specifically ban referral fees, allowing only fee-splitting agreements either between lawyers or between professionals within the same area of work (economists, financial advisors etc.). Article 19 of the Disciplinary Legal Code stipulates that lawyers will not be able to pay, demand or accept commissions or retribution from other lawyers, or any other person, for referring clients. If these groups are run by non-legal professionals, clearly they are taking a neat kickback from whoever they designate to file their cases, or vice versa.
2. Utilization of third parties by lawyers to circumvent the provisions of the Disciplinary Legal Code. This is clearly the case with Finca Parcs: the latter is displaying a fierce and embarrassing campaign of client solicitation through various websites, where it is claimed that the group is legally represented by MC, director of CLL, and DCG Juridico, which consist of legal professionals including the father and two bothers of the former, who is also assisted by a Catedrático (translated here as a Civil Law Professor) from the University of Seville, as if this was going to make any difference.
3. Utilization of illegal publicity to gather clients: particularly objectionable is the August 2010 “Press Release” by Finca Parcs, in clear breach of article 7e) of the aforementioned code: “It is deemed as illegal client solicitation to approach, either directly or via third parties, victims of accidents or misfortunes that lack full and calm freedom to choose a lawyer as a result of a personal or collective misfortune. Yes, clients need to be advised of their rights and yes, clients need legal advice when dealing with tragedies affecting their lives. But, clients do not need to be solicited directly by attorneys/lawyers/solicitors when they are grieving or dealing with the results of a tragic event. Clients should reach out to these professionals when they are ready to do so and they should not be besieged and bombarded by those seeking to profit from their misfortune.
4. To generically or specifically encourage litigation: This is clear of all the above legal action groups, because it is their business! One example can be seen with Finca Parcs, for they have introduced an element of deceit and untruthfulness in their tormenting sales pitch: according to them, and the legal representation they have retained, abundant case law supports the unheard situation of banks being liable for clients’ deposit, regardless and irrespective of whether a bank guarantee line was ever approved by them or special accounts where used. According to the pitch, banks are always liable for refunding down payments made in respect of a failed off-plan project, for the simple (and simplistic) reason that the developer opened a bank account for them to operate: this is the essence of their strategy and their soon-to-achieve huge court windfall success, on the basis of some case law that as of yet, in spite of numerous requests, no lawyer has had sight of, unless they were referring to an isolated ruling of the Court of First Instance in Madrid (not deemed case law) where a bank is forced to indemnify a property buyer, on a failed development, since such funds were borrowed by the buyer from the developer’s bank (and hence, should have ensured that such funds were paid into a special account, protected by a guarantee, and not a normal account, in breach of the 57/1968 Act).  This ruling, which has already been analysed on a previous post, cannot be relied upon as applicable case law or jurisprudence unless it is ratified by a superior Court. Should this happen, not even then it could be of general application due to the very particular set of circumstances that surround the case.
5. Promising the achievement of results that are not exclusively dependent upon the activity of the lawyer that is publicising himself, and using means and expressions, audio-visual or in writing, that are discrediting, denigrating and scornful of the Legal Profession, the Justice and its symbols. The Spanish Property Action Group knows a bit about this, when advertising (or those of their undisclosed lawyers, for that matter) their “Get Your Money Back” seminars. They then go on to claim that people have lost their life savings or retirement funds and are all victims of the illegal activities or unscrupulous developers and the lawyers representing them, and promise, in return for a fee, a miraculous formula to recover this money (without even establishing, as one has to do, the legal position of these people they are pitching to!). The Action Group then state that those involved know how to recover funds because they have already done successfully and know the pitfalls to avoid: realistically, can anyone possibly envisage a more disgraceful and indecent way to make money?
6. All of the above in one. Finally, a special bullet point has to be dedicated to fraudulent companies known as ‘recovery rooms’, a particular type of boiler roooms specialised in fraud recovery fraud, which use registered lawyers to add appearance of legitimacy. The most prominent one is currently Ramirez and Ramirez Asesores (www.specialist-lawyers.com). Its owner, Fabian Ramirez Marcelo, an ex-timeshare reseller, in spite of the domain name he uses for his activities and his total detachment from the legal profession (as an astronaut orbiting the earth can possibly be), considers his Fuengirola recovery room, of all places, to be a specialist leading firm. But not any firm: one that cold calls thousands of victims of all sorts of scams, their names and numbers on illegal lists (sucker lists) bought in the black market, purporting to be leading lawyers in the matter and promising a quick result through the courts. Needless to say, never do these clients get anywhere because never the cases are followed up: all they do is fill out a form, take it to the courts or the police, ensure they get a stamp on it and then on to rip off the next one. The lawyer they allegedly use, Damian Vazquez, seems to not remember who Fabian Marcelo is, and when asked about his connections with Ramirez and Ramirez, claims that only occasionally has he collaborated with them. Two other lawyers I contacted also appeared to be losing memory fast when our conversation went into detail. Needless to say, again, Ramirez and Ramirez falls foul of all the above bullet points, their activities being dismissive of the most elementary rules of decency and honesty.

Antonio Flores Litigation, Property, Scams ambulance chasers, Bank Guarantees in Spain, Bulgaria-Property-Action-Group, Finca Parcs, litigation against spanish developers, property action groups, Ramirez and Ramirez, Ramirez and Ramirez Abogados, Ramirez and Ramirez Asesores, Spanish Property Action Group

It’s not been quite like the search for Bin Laden, but we have been scouring all case law databases for the last couple of years trying to find any ruling that would point to the direction of the banks’ liability to refund property buyers, in the event of developers falling foul of their obligations to refund deposits, where the latter had accounts opened with the former and were using them to trade in property, irrespective of whether bank guarantees were available or special accounts opened at all, these being the 2 main obligations developer’s had, in accordance to the 57/1968 Act on Off-Plan Property Down Payments (Ley 57/1968, de 27 de julio, reguladora de las percepciones de cantidades anticipadas en la construcción y venta de viviendas).

One very web-active colleague that was initially admitting to having the evasive case law but was reluctant to disclose it (we still don’t know if they really have any of it), is instead now hinting that there was something to that effect, always in a vague but nonetheless “mercantile” manner, so as to no doubt monopolize the information and release it with a big bang when the time was right (all very strange, really). A website with a pretended interest in helping thousands who have lost thousands to rogue developers also claimed this case law existed but my insistent requests to have a copy of such ruling were left unresponded.

And then, just by chance, we have come across a ruling, written up by the Judge in charge of Court of First Instance number 54 in Madrid, that finds a bank responsible of being irresponsible and forces it to repay a buyer who bought into a development that was never completed. We have asked for a copy of the ruling from our Madrid colleague who, as we expected, has kindly and promptly acceded to forward us one, after the long-weekend, that is. Once we have received it, we will discuss it, as it has the potential to set a precedent that can make banks responsible in any event, where they consented developers to use their accounts to trade in property, without securing the deposits that were being paid into those accounts by customers. In the ruling, the Judge determined that the bank manager, who knew the buyer personally, had lent him the deposit that was to be invested with the developer, who was also his client. The Judge found the developer’s bank (and buyer’s lender) morally responsible because it knew that the loan was to be used to buy a property, and consented that the loan was paid directly into the developer’s account, which, known to the bank, did not comply with the 57/1968 Act. Indeed, all very incestuous!

It is soon to draw conclusions but I can say that:

• The ruling has not been appealed, presumably to avoid the inevitable publicity it would attract if it went to a higher judicial instance, in this case, the Provincial Audience (quoting my colleague).
• The case is specific, in that the bank assisting the developer was also the lender for the buyer, perfectly knew that the funds were going to be used as a deposit for offplan property, and allowed these funds to be lodged in one of their accounts.
• According to our Madrid colleague, barring error or omission, there is no known case law on the matter (note that a ruling of a Court of First Instance is not deemed as case law).

Another consequence of this rulling is that a developer may force banks to advance funds to complete unfinished developments as, if unprotected buyers can find solace in this doctrine, so should the developer (although that’s another story altogether).

This ruling can be the beginning of the end of the nightmares many bona fide buyers have and are going through. My advice is, in any event, to apply caution and prudence, until we can get hold of it (ruling) and have it read, dissected, interpreted and, ultimately, draw reasoned and balanced conclusions on how to proceed.

It should be stressed that this is a very specific case, with a very particular set of circumstances that render it unique, and cannot be considered of general application against all banks and developers (at least with what we have so far). Each case we come across needs to be analised thoroughly and clients advised that losing it will almost invariably attract subtantial legal costs (and certainly where a claim is deemed to be “reckless”).

Documents

• Judge Rulling Sentencing Bank to Refund Moneys not Secured With Bank Guarantee (pdf – 1.44Mb.)

Antonio Flores Litigation, Property bank guarantees, Bank Guarantees in Spain, ley 57/1968, litigation against spanish developers, spanish developers, special accounts

I may be stretching the concept of misappropriation a bit too far, more so when criminal laws are always to be interpreted restrictively, but the absence of a bank guarantee has landed the property developer of our case study in jail after being given a two year prison sentence, a term that could have been avoided if he had done what he was supposed to do, guarantee the funds paid on account of the purchase price.

The Supreme Court has ratified an earlier ruling by the Appeal Courts in Madrid where the developer was sentenced because the deposit he received was not destined to cancelling the mortgage loan on the property, as promised. The 2010 ruling, in peseta denomination (which means that the claim was lodged prior to 2002!), describes the facts leading to the 2-year prison term ruling:

1. Property developer sells off-plan villa for 24 million pesetas.
2. Payment plan establishes that 8 million pesetas are to be paid upfront and 16 million pesetas on completion, paid in cash or alternatively by taking over the mortgage facility offered by the developer’s lender.
3. Nearing completion, the developer fails to finish the works, and, consequently, buyers are advised to complete at the earliest as unfolding events cast serious doubts on the developer’s financial solvency.
4. Buyers find out that the developer’s mortgage is of 19 million pesetas and not the figure of 16 million pesetas. Still, the latter is unable to refund the 3 million pesetas the buyer has overpaid, or redeem the mortgage down to 16 million, as he is underfunded.
5. Developer is not only unable to reduce the mortgage to 16 million pesetas but he cannot finish the works.

As a consequence of the above, the buyers sued in Court, as they felt swindled by the developer (clearly!). He was sentenced in 2002 for aggravated misappropriation (by reason of it being related to property). Seven years later, the Supreme Court understands that there is no reason to uphold the appeal and maintains the original ruling. Additionally, the developer was forced to pay damages, these being the sums lost to the developer plus interest.

However, if the developer had guaranteed the down-payments by offering an irrevocable bank guarantee or insurance policy, the buyers would have not had a chance to pursue the matter criminally because a refund would have been immediately available (especially as the license of occupancy was not issued at the time of closing). Nevertheless, by breaking statutory civil laws, he found himself in the hands of a prosecuting lawyer, a criminal prosecutor and uncompromising judges.

This ruling opens the door to heavier scrutiny on the use of deposits paid to developers, to the point that if they are used for purposes unrelated to, strictly speaking, the construction of property, criminal cases can be easily brought.

We have been informed that the developer of Los Monteros Hill Club incurred in such practice, causing at least one buyer to lose hundreds of thousands of euros, as the full purchase price was handed over but was not used to cancel the outstanding loans on the properties.

Antonio Flores Litigation, Mortgages, Property bank guarantees, Bank Guarantees in Spain, litigation against spanish developers, Los Monteros Hill Club, spanish developers

In Spanish, ‘La Verdad’ means ‘The Truth’. But it is also the name of a local newspaper in the Murcia region that interviewed, back in 2006, a young and confident looking José Luis Pérez Carrión, Marketing Manager for Calidona. In this interview he extolled the virtues of the Corvera Golf  and Country Club grand project and its impressive facilities, including the PGA Olazabal-designed Golf Course (Ryder´s Cup contestant) and a 5 star De Vere-run hotel, with Spa and so many more luxuries you would expect from a hotel of this stature. Quoting Perez Carrión:

“We offer a different life-style, close to nature and the beach with a view to practice sports within an unbeatable environment and with all the facilities that the client may need. Also, owing to an agreement between the prestigious hotel chain De Vere, specialists in golf accommodation, we will be able to offer the services of a luxury hotel and a Spa.”

It´s February 2010 and la verdad is that there is no hotel, just as much as there is no equestrian centre, sports facilities, swimming pools, tennis club, private gym, commercial centre and a number of other amenities that were the primary reason for a couple of hundred people to buy in this development.

We took an interest in this case after being contacted by a few persons who had bought in Corvera Golf and Country Club, and after agreeing to take up their cases, a lawyer of the firm and a sort of specialist forensic valuer went over to draw up a report on the resort and it’s (lacking) facilities, and indeed it appears that many of them never left Corvera architect’s drawing boards, and are therefore just that, “un sueño” (a dream), as it reads on the bottom left part of the original promotional plan embedded in this post.

This is conclusive that a degree of contractual default has taken place, which will entitle buyers to file for cancellation of the contracts on the basis of misrepresentation. It is then up to the lawyers to argue the case successfully, with as much ammunition as possible (contracts, brochures, articles, witnesses, including Olazabal if required), and propel it to a successful conclusion for our clients, judge permitting.

In a similar claim we filed against Manilva Costa and Ocean View Properties, the judge of First Instance in Estepona granted contractual rescission as he found that the developer “misrepresented and misled buyers by promising, through marketing literature, facilities such as top restaurants, shops, a health and leisure club, tennis courts, Turkish baths, sauna, Jacuzzi, fully equipped gymnasium, heated pool and kindergarten service, and it is clear that none of those have been built”. He then added that “from the documents submitted to this Court, it has been established beyond doubt that the publicizing of these facilities in brochures was a fundamental element in the buyer’s decision to buy, as collectively they had induced him to proceed with the purchase of a property which was located in a relatively isolated development and distant from similar facilities.”

With respect to buyers in Corvera Golf and Country Club Phase IV, the above can be irrelevant because their properties have not even been built and therefore contractual default will come from delayed completion. The rest of phases seem to have been built more or less on time, that is, within 18 months from the date of issue of planning permission (such is the delivery date on the contract) so we are reluctant to base the case on this argument.

As with many other Court cases, we will play the devil’s advocate so as to test the quality of our legal arguments and identify weaknesses in its structure and content since Corvera will fight this case to the end. But still, the De Vere 5 star hotel is just not there!

Our case is due to be filed within days. We will keep anyone with an interest in this development posted through this blog.
—

• Update March, 14 – 2010: Lawbird.com Corvera Golf and Country Club Section updated
• Update March, 03 – 2010: Photos taken last week of the unfinished facilities have been added below:

Antonio Flores Litigation, Property Calidona, Corvera Golf and Country Club, litigation against spanish developers, Manilva Costa, Manilva Costa SA, Ocean View Properties