Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Spoony

A British Pensioner Has Lost Her Battle To Prevent An Embargo Being Slapped On Her Uk Home Over A Defunct Property Deal.

Recommended Posts

http://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2013/06/02/court-rules-against-brit-pensioner-in-property-deal-case/

Court rules against Brit pensioner in property deal case

A BRITISH pensioner has lost her battle to prevent an embargo being slapped on her UK home over a defunct property deal.

In a ruling that could have a widespread impact on British property owners in Spain, a Spanish court ruled that Joan Deak was responsible for the fact that a developer did not finish a property she had paid a deposit for.

Deak has used the original agent she had bought the property through Palmera Properties to sell the unfinished home on to a Spanish buyer.

But now a judge has ruled she must return the €25,000 the Spanish buyer paid her, despite her not being responsible for the house’s construction.

She has also been ordered to pay his costs, which could amount to tens of thousands more.

As the Olive Press reported last month, she now faces having her three bedroom London house embargoed in order to recoup the money.

She insists she does not have the money to appeal the hearing.

“It is incredible. I am being sued over a house that was never delivered by the developer and builder,” she said.

This result means that anybody who has sold an option via Palmera Properties,or any other agent for that matter, can be successfully sued by the buyer.

“I believe this result sets a precedent for others to follow!”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like that she flipped the property before it was finished.

She does not say how much deposit she put down

Trying to make a quick buck?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
one hell of a ruling.

caveat emptor.

can't see why she's liable for the developer defaulting.must be more to it.

She had a contact with the developer, the buyer has a contract with her.

The buyer sued her because she didn't deliver what was promised, she can sue the developer now... if they still exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one hell of a ruling.

caveat emptor.

can't see why she's liable for the developer defaulting.must be more to it.

Caveat emptor on high risk foreign jurisdiction options you have to wonder why she was getting involved with in the first place. Couldn't possibly have been the pursuit of high returns. Slap her with an ESA for the London home.

Perhaps the first round of option buyers took on primary liability from the developer, for anything in the off-plan build that was delayed because of unexpected circumstances, with a legal liability remaining upon the individual to those they sell the option on to.

Offplan buyers have always been at risk of loss because of the risks of building a building, and circumstances the developer may encounter which are outside their control to keep to draft schedule. Example: unexpected groundwork problems. Banks pulling second round funding. Such are the risks of buying off-plan, all for some implied discount which never really existed in the first place come 2004/05 and easy borrowing.

The vast majority put down deposits on developments promoted by the firm owned by Ferrari-driving church-goer Jesus Gotardo, who lives in Fuengirola. Most of these homes were never built. Deak’s nightmare began when she and a business partner invested in two unfinished apartments in Mirador de Torreblanca, near Fuengirola in 2004.

They put down a deposit of €69,000 on the two apartments, which were due to be finished later that year.

However, the following year, with progress moving increasingly slowly they decided to sell the option – at a loss – on one of the unfinished apartments.

more http://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2013/05/02/leave-my-home-alone/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How enforceable are Spanish civil court rulings in English law ? I would imagine this would need to go before a Britsh court to be enforced. The UK might not even be in the EU by the time that happens.

Since 1992 judgements are valid EU wide. They would have to get local Bailiffs to enforce and the judgement would need to be translated into English by a duly qualified translator.

As another poster has said, it all sounds perfectly reasonable. The woman sold a house she was unable to deliver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was in Detroit, round about '74, I read in the local paper that a man came home to find his (paid for) house being auctioned in the street. It seems he had what they call aluminum siding fitted (weatherboarding to us) and the builder had gone broke, and had not paid the aluminium supplier. Under the law there, the aluminium supplier had recourse to seize whatever the product was fixed to and had arranged the auction - of course, the owner had no idea this was going on at all.

The local paper claimed this was based on old English contract law :blink:

It had a happy ending though. The owner was able to rush around and find enough cash to buy his own house at the auction (it looks to me like there must have been some loophole where the house owner only had to repay the builder's debt.) I didn't find out if the owner was able to recover his costs via his insurance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

some interesting cases over here.april 30th 2012

http://www.jmw.co.uk/blog/off-plan-buyers-do-not-have-to-complete-property-purchase

'Mr Justice Deeney ruled that two men do not have to complete the purchase of an off-plan apartment at a price they had agreed in 2007, due to a breach of trust which had left them "wholly in the dark" for months. They were found to be entitled to the return of their deposit (£23,750) with interest at 5% backdated from 19 April 2007. '

The purchaser in this case was a local Belfast property developing Barrister.

He failed on appeal.

http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/en-GB/Judicial%20Decisions/PublishedByYear/Documents/2012/%5b2012%5d%20NICA%2058/j_j_GIR8669Final.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry may sound harsh, but no sympathy from me.

Maybe a little bit of sympathy is due.

We've had 15 years of the mainstream media pumping out a constant stream of house porn which has served to brainwash the public into believing that property is a sure fire 100% guaranteed investment and that spivs in shiny suits are in fact experts.

No sane person would buy an overseas property off-plan, only in the midst of a mass delusion would people think this is a good idea.

Only a little bit of sympathy mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

some interesting cases over here.april 30th 2012

http://www.jmw.co.uk...operty-purchase

'Mr Justice Deeney ruled that two men do not have to complete the purchase of an off-plan apartment at a price they had agreed in 2007, due to a breach of trust which had left them "wholly in the dark" for months. They were found to be entitled to the return of their deposit (£23,750) with interest at 5% backdated from 19 April 2007. '

The developer in that case was at fault simply because they did not explain to the off-plan purchaser the circumstances of the delay was for a situation outside of the developers control. Therefore the court found the offplan purchasers had the right to rescind, as per their original request. The case entirely rested purely on the developer not serving adequate notice behind the delay.

If the solicitor for the developer had not just told the buyers in letters they had no right to rescind, but explained the reasons why there was a delay (and it has to be a reason outside of the developer's control, otherwise the developer likely liable for the delay), then the offplan buyers would have been locked in. The off-plan buyers would also then have the right to check or challenge if the reasons for delay were as valid as they have been told, as their own expense.

Edited by Venger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The purchaser in this case was a local Belfast property developing Barrister.

He failed on appeal.

Well even better! Although I think the original ruling will be noted by more solicitors acting for developers in the future. If you don't give a reason for a delay, it creates a possible opening to rescind + legal fees defending the position. I see from that ruling it works both ways; the off-plan buyers could also have asked the developer what the reasons were behind the delay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well even better! Although I think the original ruling will be noted by more solicitors acting for developers in the future. If you don't give a reason for a delay, it creates a possible opening to rescind + legal fees defending the position. I see from that ruling it works both ways; the off-plan buyers could also have asked the developer what the reasons were behind the delay.

Yep, the buyers would have to have shown they asked the developer and had to means to complete on the expected completion date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 242 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.