Corvera Golf and Country Club: Another Broken Promise
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:
This seems to be par for the course (excuse the pun!)in Murcia. Mazarron Country Club has none of the advertised facilities and the developer admitted that there was no intention of providing them – they were simply advertised to sell the houses off-plan. The Polaris World resorts in Murcia also seem to have problems with missing facilities. The Town Halls are not interested – they are making plenty of money in taxes on these new developments. Very little to gain in a court case, the developer will almiost certainly go into administration before the completion of the lengthy court proceedings – four years plus seems not to be out of the ordinary.
The President of Murcia, Ramon Luis Valcarcel, could have acted on these matters years ago, but he does not even acknowledge letters, never mind deal with the situation.
No wonder Spain in general and Murcia in particular is getting such bad publicity.
I don´t share your views that Town Halls are not interested in having 5 star hotels and other exclusive facilities, in my opinion it is the developers that happily (and recklessly) announce the construction of facilities that are either out of their financial reach or simply are more a dream than a reality. Court cases against developers in these instances are a necessity (being a lawyer this statement reeks of partiality, I am aware!) even if under threat of insolvency so as to strip them of the priviliges or impunity and inmunity. The duration of a case can range from 8 to 14 months or twice that duration if the cases are heard by a Mercantile Court (which happens when the developer goes into administration).
Having spoken to Jonathan Lambert, the lawyer previously dealing with a number of cases, we have been advised that his firm made the decision to not proceed with taking legal action because in his opinion the missing facilities would not be deemed to be, by the Murcia Courts, as fundamental breach of contract. Obviously we respect his opinion and frankness, but I don’t share his views. We are also advised that the developer has retained the services of Garrigues, the largest law firm in Spain.
In which case why do you propose pursuing legal action for the two clients you mention in your blog if the lack of facilities are unlikely to be considered good cause for breach of contract?
The lack of facilities are not considered to be good cause for breach of contract by the previous lawyer dealing with the matter. Our litigation department has concluded that, contrary to his opinion (which we respect), there are sufficient grounds to uphold a contractual rescission for misrepresentation. This is more clearly seen on the photos I will post here which are part of the report we have drawn up.
We (and 100 others) were with the above solicitior “J.Lambert” and felt very let down by his total “U turn” after representing us for 12 months. We are now seeking a new legal team to fight this case, having read your other blog regarding this case, I am suprised at your U turn, as you previously implied this case was hopeless. What has made your legal team now consider this case to be “not reckless litigation” as you have previously said. Have you been to the resort and have you gained 1st hand reports etc.
Thanks for your response. As a buyer on Phase 2 who is taking legal action to recover my deposit I am reassured that you believe as we (and our lawyers) do, that we have grounds here for breach of contract. No doubt it will be a long and drawn out affair but I am prepared to be patient and certainly not prepared to forgive them for the broken promises.
Dear Rick,
My apologies, I mistakenly ommited on my post that although I did respect the opinion and frankness of J. Lambert I did not share his views at all because there is not one facility built. In our case we decided to verify this by formally requesting Town Hall certificates and also by driving up to the complex, drawing up a legal report and taking photographs, which are to be published in a little while in this post. Finally, kindly note that we only take cases where the odds of winning are higher than 65/35 and to achieve this we submit in support of our claim every single document, photograph, report, newspaper article and witness statement we can get our hands on.
65% odds is very conservative. I’m no lawyer, but in my opinion the chances of winning are no less than 99%! Look at the photos, they haven’t built any of the advertised facilities! Just compare the site to that of the brochures!
I am another unhappy Corvera purchaser who will be trying to get my deposit returned. I was wondering if the bank guarantees might still be valid? I believe that they are normally only valid until the habitation licence has been granted, but in our case we had a ‘resolution of contract’ in place before the habitation licences were granted. Would they remain valid because of this?
If they are still valid, should our deposits still be with the guarantor? How can we find out where our deposits are?
kev
Hello Julian,
It is incorrect for a lawyer to say that we have 99% chances of winning, that we have a very solid case or that there is a clear breach of contract. There is certainly a good case which, if we were to apply logic and common sense, could reach that 99% you say but Courts are not always run on those principles!
Whatever we invoke needs to be proved and therefore we are in the process of obtaining, for our case, at least 10 independently drawn up letters, statements, reports and certificates proving that the undertakings made by the developer have not been complied with at the time of completion and that in fact, some will never be met.
Hello Kevin,
You are right in assuming that bank guarantees are only valid until the habitation license is obtained but if you were on the list of buyers who cancelled their contracts via the Notary Public before the license was obtained then, in principle, your right to execute the guarantee would be carried back to the day of notarial cancellation, when in fact no license was in place. The problem is see with this is that the notarial contractual rescission was based on lack of promised facilities and not on a delay in obtaining the license of habitation, which is the basis for executing the guarantee (Phase IV would be different as not even building license is in place).
I am looking at the OFFCIAL website of Corvera, and under thier heading ” Services” it States
Living in a quiet environment does not necessarily mean kiving peacefully
Quietness is provided by having at your reach anything you need at the moment you need it.Thats why living in Corvera Golf and Country Club means living peacefully in every way, there is a :- HEALTH CENTRE, A SHOPPING CENTRE,RESTURANTS,INDOOR SWIMMING POOL,SPA. LUXURIOUS HOTEL,
Well unless I missed something ? all thats there is a tin hut thate supposed to be a coffee shop and supermarket !! This is not 5 star, Why are they still allowed to advertise this nonsense when none of the above
has even had I brick layed ???? In any other business this would be classed as fraud or mis-selling or whatever nonsene you can think of.
When you look at buying a car for example , you look at the brochures/website pick your car all the added extra”s and buy YOU dont when you get delivery except it with no Wheels ??? Why should purchasers except the rubbish Corvera are doing ? No excuse re Credit Crunch,the 1st Phase was do for completion in 2007 . before that
Hi got another gem for you that I think you need to notarise.
Its from Calidona”s President no less Senor Jose Luis Perez Ros
below is his comment that quite frankly he couldnt have got more wrong if he tryed,
The challenge is to consolidate the residential tourism secter in Spain,
while remaining unaffected by market fluctuations.
The answer is to create quality models developed by solvent, highly proffesional companies, who”s main commitment is total customer satisfaction.
This is still on thier webpage http://www.calidona.es
Go on the page and click on Calidona top left handside and read the article, There are other things in thier Brochure/webpage that I feel
needs investigating and Notarised ,
I wonder if Senor Perez is aware that this garbage is still today on his website ? I am sure if he new he would retract that statement
These are type of comments property developing companies were making in the good days. I take note of this and is now being analysed by our litigation department. I wonder if Mr. Perez is still working in the company!
I would think so , Mr Perez is Chairman / President of all Calidona and the other off-shoots,
If you check the Town hall records though you will see that him and all the top senior management have been resigning from a lot of the Companys that they set up, Not only thiers but after companys where the Directors were also Directors in each others,,
Mr Perez started the Development Business with his 2 sons, One of which is at the start of your blog Jose Luis Perez Carrion
Hi, just found this blog. We signed up over 2 years ago and paid a deposit of over £32000 with a view to rent to pay the mortgage which was a sound investment at the time. Obviously the interest rates etc have escalated but our problem is that we cannot get a mortgage with the developers mortgage lenders, Banco de Valencia. Corvera are not good at listening to people and we have been emailing them for over 6 months explaining why we can’t complete. Our Solicitors have repeatedly spoken to Corvera but they won’t accept our situation. Can anyone give us any advice please.
NOT A SINGLE BRICK LAID – Views welcome.
We purchased several villas as an investment in phase 3 nearly 3 years ago. To date not a single brick has been laid and the building licence still not been given. Whilst Corvera’s legal team will tell you that they are not in any breach of contract the simple fact is that they have taken a large amount of money on an open ended contract. We have also been misled with reference to the facilities that would be available.
We are currently in discussions with our own legal team on taking proceedings up with Corvera and would welcome contact from others in the same position as ourselves ie. NOT A SINGLE BRICK LAID.
Please contract me via email at adam.grallae@gmail.com.
Thank you
Dear Adam,
Thank you for your email.
I presume that your legal team has assessed the situation and decided that there is a clear breach of contract since contracts cannot be open ended for a completion date has to be in place. If such date does not exist, as in your case, then it has to be inferred from conversations, emails, witnesses, publications, brochures etc.
In principle it is normal to infer that if when you bought the works has not begun 24 months would be deemed as reasonable to deliver the property as it is the standard delivery term for a property.
With regards to the facilities this is yet another contractual default that would be invoked in the process of cancellation.
We are currently representing a few clients who are actively pursuing their funds back but I am aware that there are many others who have not decided to proceed against the developer.
Kind regards
Sincerely
Hello Lisa,
It is fruitless to speak to Corvera, they will ignore any request which is not related to completing. You will have to unfortunately proceed with legal action against them if you finally decide that you don´t or cannot proceed but try to not jeopardize your position by showing interest in completing (dealing with the developers mortgage, sending emails or faxes to the developer etc.) as this is detrimental to your interests.
Does anyone have the contact details for aflores?
Thanks
You can contact Antonio Flores on aflores [at] lawbird [dot] com
Regards
Hi Antonio
I am another disgruntled Corvera buyer. There is no way I’ll complete on this ghost resort now. I have waited a long time and there are still no facilities there that were promised when I bought and even if they were to build them now it’s too late.
I’m thinkng of walking away from the contract because there is a clause in it that says if the buyer does not complete “the vendor shall be entitled to terminate this agreement and to collect a standard penalty equal to the amounts paid up until then by the purchaser. Accordingly the vendor may retain the payments made until then as a penalty under civil law and as expressly established between the parties,” Does this mean that the maximum penalty we would have to pay is the amount we have paid to date or does it mean they can keep this amount and still come after us for more?
Hello Sean,
The developer has 2 options if you decide to default on your obligations: he can either cancel the contract and retain the deposit in concept of damages or try to enforce specific performance through the Courts. This therefore means that they can come after you for the full purchase price. However, one cannot enforce completion nor legitimatley cancel a contract if one has not complied with one´s obligations, and Corvera in this case has clearly not complied with the construction of the facilities, the most important of which is the construction of a 5 star hotel. So at this point several things can happen: that you sue them to terminate the contract and get a refund plus interest and costs, that they sue you or that you both sue each other. Ultimately, the decision as to the degree of default (full or partial) lies with the Courts.
Dear aflores,
i bought 2 apartments in corvera golf in2006 never finsh till 2009 by that time ,no other all facilities they promised has been built i have told them to refund my money but they told me i can cancel the contract but i cannot get my deposit back . could you please advice me on this matter .
m chitroda
Dear M Chitroda, Corvera Golf are not returning deposits voluntarily unless they are taken to Courts. So far that we know, they have not filed for judicial voluntary administration, which means that they have full control over the governance of their company, and for this reason it may be advisable to explore the legal action route.
It is also now clear that they will not be building any of the facilities, some or most of which were crucial when getting potential buyers to exchange contracts. Except for Phase IV, the rest of the legal cases are being based on contractual default on the delivery of these facilities.
Hola Antonio, I wrote to you in the past about my options in Corvera and you kindly responded. I decided to sit and wait and see what developed. There was a case in Murcia’s Court Number 11 on the 1st October this year (I think the lawyers were Irwin Mitchell) and I am wondering how to go about findng out the result.
Many thanks
Sean
Hi Sean!
Thanks for your email.
We cannot find out about the ruling via the Court ruling databases although, we could ask Irwin Mitchell (although they no longer operate in Spain but through a another firm).
Antonio
I understand from another legal site that the Appeal Court in Murcia has rules against Corvera in an action taken for cancellation due to lack of promised facilities