Queridos amigos,
Los Misterios de la Justicia nos vuelven a dejar asombrados con lo acontecido esta semana.
El Domingo 23 nos despertamos con la noticias de que la "poderosa" promotora malagueña caía al final en el pozo del concurso de acreedores.
Sólo una lectura pausada de la noticia nos hacía caer en la sospecha de que alguien había "filtrado" el contenido de una demanda por la que, al parecer, se insta el concuro necesario de la empresa.
Esta sospecha se confirmó el lunes, cuando fuentes del Juzgado, (sorprendentemente ratificadas luego por la propia promotora) nos confirman no tener constancia de tal demanda.
No es que la demanda no exista, que seguramente existirá, si no es que, vistos los medios y la organización con los que cuenta la Justicia (cuyas carencias se demuestran más aún en el Juzgado Mercantil de Málaga) , los dos o tres pisos que debe caminar la demanda desde el Registro hasta el Juzgado, son más altos que el Himalaya.
Al llegar la demanda a la cima, que quizás llegue, seguramente se tomará un respiro (tras la ardua tarea alcanzar su meta) antes de que la maquinaria del proceso concursal inicie su funcionamiento. Será entonces cuando el Juez analice su competencia, la documentación que acompañen... y dictará, o no, la admisión a trámite de la solicitud de concurso necesario, y tras pedir, si procede, la subsanación de la documentación aportada, emplazará a Aifos para que comparezca ante el Juzgado.
Si se hubieran pedido medidas cautelares, estas serán analizadas y discutidas aparte.
Las opciones del deudor "a concursar" son :
no comparecer
comparecer y allanarse
comparecer y oponerse
comparecer en el procedimeinto, oponerse y no comparecer a la vista.
Como se ve, habrá una vista al efecto (en 10 días dice la Ley), pero, conociendo la carga de trabajo del Juzgado, no se podría precisar cuándo será esta.
Sólo después de esta, llegará (o no) el esperado Auto declarando el concurso de la promotora, y comenzarán los terceros perjudicados a sentir sus efectos.
Así que, volviendo al punto inicial, los Misterios de la justicia habrán transformado una noticia de algo que ya había pasado, en una expectativa de futuro.
En poco tiempo deberemos de saber algo más... váyanse preparando!!.
To my friends and clients with connection to AIFOS
Dear Friends,
The mysteries of the Judicial system has once again left us astonished with what has occurred this week.
On Sunday the 24th we awoke with the news that the all powerful malagueñan promoter has finally fallen in the endless depth of creditors.
A paused reading of the news only makes us suspect that someone has filtered the contents of one of the lawsuits by which evidently the necessary liquidation of the company.
This suspicion was confirmed on Monday, when sources from the courts, (surprisingly ratified later by the promoter) confirm not to have any proof of such lawsuit.
This does not mean that a lawsuit does not exist, surely it does exists, unless it is that, because of the ways and means things are done and as well as the type of organization in which the judicial system counts on (in which the lack is shown even more so in the Commercial Court of Malaga), the two or three floor levels that the lawsuit must climb from the point of registry until reaching the Court, must then be higher than that of the Himalayas.
Once the lawsuit reaches the peak, if it ever gets there, surely they will take a break (after the tough chore of reaching its goal) before the machinery of the judicial process begins its function. It would be then when the Judge will analyze its competence, the attached documentation… and will dictate, or not, the admission of the request for the judicial process and deem whether it is necessary and then after if he proceeds, the adjustment and order of documentation brought forth, and then would summon Aifos to appear before the court.
If they should ask for precautionary measures, these would be analyzed and argued separately.
The options of the debtor are:
Not to appear
Appear and accept claim
Appear and oppose
Appear in the proceedings, oppose and not appear at the hearing.
It looks like, there will be a hearing (by law in 10 days), but, knowing the volume of work that the court has, it would not be possible to predict when this would take place.
Only then after, we would receive (or not) the expected writ (self declaration) declaring the promoter bankrupt and the affected third parties should commence to feel these effects.
Returning to the initial point, the mysteries of the judicial system will have transformed transpired news, into future expectation.
In a short time we should know something more…………begin to prepare.
martes, 25 de noviembre de 2008
lunes, 18 de agosto de 2008
Quién paga la "legalización" de viviendas ??
Hace muy pocos días pudimos ver en la prensa la noticia de que el Ayuntamiento de Marbella no recurría la sentencia por la que se le obligaba a conceder una licencia de primera ocupación a un edificio de entre los catalogados "a demoler" por la Junta de Andalucía, y cuya licencia de obra está pendiente, al parecer, de tres o más recursos contencioso-administrativos. (Ver artículo completo aquí: http://www.diariosur.es/20080816/marbellaestepona/silencio-administrativo-permite-ocupar-20080816.html )
Al parecer esas viviendas estarán ocupadas en breve, por lo que, de entrada, de "demoler" nos olvidamos.
Al margen de consideraciones políticas, posiblemente, compradores, de buena fe, ocuparán viviendas sobra las que pesa una gran losa de recursos.
Sin embargo, el daño ya está hecho. Y no sólo a aquellos que se ven afectados por la carencia de zonas verdes, de vistas, de equipamientos... El daño afecta a aquellos que han visto como el precio que han pagado por esas viviendas difícilmente será de nuevo alcanzable.
¿Cuál es la devaluación que sufre un inmueble que se declara "ilegal" y con recursos pendientes que pueden afectar a la definitiva "legalidad" de la edificación?
¿Podrán estos compradores alquilar o vender su vivienda a alguien que sepa que existe un riesgo de que una sentencia ordene su demolición?
¿Pagará acaso el Ayuntamiento los resultados de la prevaricación, el cohecho, y, sobre todo, su inactividad ante la proliferación de licencias contrarias al planeamiento urbanístico?
Siempre he defendido que quien compra una casa compra eso, una casa, no un problema. Sin embargo son muchos los jueces, que, desde su particular perspectiva, consideran que el promotor no es responsable de que la Licencia haya sido impugnada, y que los derechos de los "especuladores" (en este concepto engloban a todo aquel que compró una vivienda asistido por un abogado) no son dignos de protección por las Leyes que regulan los Derechos de los Consumidores (sic). El hecho simple de la existencia de una impugnación de la licencia, que debería ser causa, al menos, de que quien provoca la situación, o al menos la conocía, (el promotor que construye lo que sin duda sabía que no podía hacer de acuerdo con la normativa vigente) devuelva el dinero a quien le pagó sin conocer el problema.
Ya no sólo es que el mercado haya descendido los precios, es que, ¿concederán los bancos hipotecas sobre fincas desarrolladas contra el planeamiento?
¿Pagará alguien por esto...?
Who pays for the legalization of properties?
Just a few days ago we were able to see in the press the news that the Marbella Town Hall is not appealing the sentence by which they were being obligated to grant the first occupational licence to a building categorized amongst those to be “demolished” by the Junta de Andalucía and such building licence is pending, it appears, to have three or more administration appeals. (View complete article at: http://www.diariosur.es/20080816/marbellaestepona/silencio-administrativo-permite-ocupar-20080816.html)
It appears that these properties will be occupied shortly, for now let us put tthe “demolishing” to one side.
Leaving out any political considerations, possibly, buyers, in good faith, will occupy properties which suffer the weight of the legal process.
Even though, the damage is already done. Not only those who are affected by the lack of green space, views, equipment…The damage affects those who have seen how the price they have paid for these properties with difficulty will again be unreachable.
What is the devaluation that these properties will suffer when declared “illegal” and with pending appeals that can affect the definitive “legality” of the construction?
Will these buyers be able to rent or sale their properties to someone who knows there exists the risk that the court may sentence and five the order to be demolish?
Will the Town pay for the result of the breach of legal duty, corruption, bribes and above all the inactivity before the proliferation of licences against the town planning?
I have always used the definition that who buys a home buys that, a home, not a problem. Even though there are many judges, that, from their personal perspective, consider that the promoter is not responsible for the Licence being contested, and that the rights of the “speculators” (under this concept grouping all those who purchased a property with the assistance of a lawyer) are not worthy of protection by the Law that regulates the Rights of the Consumer (sic). The simple fact of the existence of a contested licence, should be the lease cause, that provokes the situation, or at least the less know, (the promoter that constructs knowing without a doubt that it could not be done in accordance to the in forced regulations) returns money to whom paid it without knowing the problem.
It is now not only that the real estate market has descended prices, are the banks considering mortgages on properties developed against the planning act?
Is someone going to pay for this…………?
Just a few days ago we were able to see in the press the news that the Marbella Town Hall is not appealing the sentence by which they were being obligated to grant the first occupational licence to a building categorized amongst those to be “demolished” by the Junta de Andalucía and such building licence is pending, it appears, to have three or more administration appeals. (View complete article at: http://www.diariosur.es/20080816/marbellaestepona/silencio-administrativo-permite-ocupar-20080816.html)
It appears that these properties will be occupied shortly, for now let us put tthe “demolishing” to one side.
Leaving out any political considerations, possibly, buyers, in good faith, will occupy properties which suffer the weight of the legal process.
Even though, the damage is already done. Not only those who are affected by the lack of green space, views, equipment…The damage affects those who have seen how the price they have paid for these properties with difficulty will again be unreachable.
What is the devaluation that these properties will suffer when declared “illegal” and with pending appeals that can affect the definitive “legality” of the construction?
Will these buyers be able to rent or sale their properties to someone who knows there exists the risk that the court may sentence and five the order to be demolish?
Will the Town pay for the result of the breach of legal duty, corruption, bribes and above all the inactivity before the proliferation of licences against the town planning?
I have always used the definition that who buys a home buys that, a home, not a problem. Even though there are many judges, that, from their personal perspective, consider that the promoter is not responsible for the Licence being contested, and that the rights of the “speculators” (under this concept grouping all those who purchased a property with the assistance of a lawyer) are not worthy of protection by the Law that regulates the Rights of the Consumer (sic). The simple fact of the existence of a contested licence, should be the lease cause, that provokes the situation, or at least the less know, (the promoter that constructs knowing without a doubt that it could not be done in accordance to the in forced regulations) returns money to whom paid it without knowing the problem.
It is now not only that the real estate market has descended prices, are the banks considering mortgages on properties developed against the planning act?
Is someone going to pay for this…………?
viernes, 25 de julio de 2008
Si has comprado una casa sobre plano ¿Tienes aval?...
Esta es la primera pregunta que hoy se estará haciendo cualquier comprador de una vivienda a MARTINSA-FADESA, y, sin duda , es la pregunta que debería hacerse todo aquel que se halle inmerso en la compra-venta de una vivienda sobre plano, no importa que sea en Cooperativa, a una promotora…
Efectivamente, existe una vieja Ley, olvidada para algunos o interpretada tendenciosamente por otros, denominada Ley 57/1968 de 27 de julio, de anticipos entregados a Cuenta para la Construcción. Una Ley de las pocas que quedan vigentes desde antes de nuestra Constitución, que si bien (con sólo 6 artículos vigentes) es clara a los ojos del bienintencionado, puede utilizarse, y se utiliza (o se ignora) a mejor conveniencia del obligado por ella.
Hemos leído en estos días acerca del interés del gobierno en que las viviendas de la citada constructora “se terminen o se devuelva el dinero”, lo que sorprende en boca de quien ha consentido y aprovechado de la imparable voracidad urbanística a base de cobrar “su parte” en los abrumadores impuestos asociados a la venta de inmuebles.
Mejor harían en preocuparse de la realidad ¿Tendrán los compradores avales que garanticen la devolución de lo entregado? Seguramente no. Si no todos, muchos carecerán de ese obligatorio aval al que nos hemos referido antes.
Hasta hoy, nos tememos que ninguna instancia se haya preocupado en exceso acerca de su esta aval existía o no. (Hasta hace pocos años la falta de aval podía ser considerado como delito o falta, lo que, no sin falta de razón fue modificado), al quedar reducida su falta a una infracción administrativa cuya tramitación, inútil al consumidor que presente la denuncia, se demora en el tiempo hacia lo infinito.
Con la relevancia del caso MARTINSA-FADESA, y con el previsible y similar proceso que seguirán otras empresas de igual o algo inferior dimensión (habría que preguntarse también dónde están los ingentes beneficios obtenidos durante el “boom inmobiliario”), lo que se consideraba un problema “administrativo” se revelará como un escándalo de considerables dimensiones. Miles de familias verán peligrar los ahorros de toda una vida.
¿Acaso los bancos van a condonar las ingentes cargas hipotecarias sobre los pisos inacabados? ¿Quién va a acabar sus pisos y asumir estas cargas? ¿Tendrán las entidades financieras liquidez para afrontar las devoluciones de los importes que avalaron? ¿Existirán los avales?
La falta de efectos civiles de la carencia de aval ha amparado la situación actual, y sólo cuando un contrato de compra-venta, una licencia urbanística, o un convenio, sean nulos de no acreditarse la existencia de la línea de avales, esta lamentable situación no cambiará.
La segunda pregunta que pocos se hacen y sin duda se harán, debería de ser “¿Será válido mi aval?
No es baladí esta cuestión. Ya son muchos los que, vista que no se les entregaba la vivienda, que esta era “ilegal”, o incluso que no se iniciaba, ya han acudido al aval pensando que este respondía del “buen fin” de su contrato, para encontrarse con la primera sorpresa: El banco (o compañía de seguros) se niega a pagar.
Algunos de aquellos que pudieron pleitear (lo que no es gratis, recuérdese) lograron por fin su dinero, pero otros se encontraron con la segunda sorpresa: Su aval era inútil.
Si el sector financiero puede hacer gala de algo, lo es de falta de transparencia, y muchos avales está plagados de cláusulas limitativas, ajenas a la Ley, como caducidades, condicionantes o términos oscuros, que, no en pocas ocasiones, no son apreciados por el sistema judicial, ante una Ley que, aunque simple, contiene “términos oscuros” que pueden ser un obstáculo para su eficacia.
De nuevo, una Ley “antigua” aplicada a una sociedad moderna, se revela ineficaz.
Esperemos que el legislador sea, esta vez, más listo y se anticipe a los efectos hacia terceros, los consumidores, de su falta previa de atención.
If you have purchased a property of plan
Do you have guarantee?
This is the first question today that buyers are making when they purchase a property from MARTINSA-FADESA , and, without a doubt, it is the first question that everyone should make who is thinking of immersing in the buying/selling of a property of plan, it does not matter if it is a Cooperative, or a promoter…………
In fact, there exists an old Law, forgotten by some or interpreted tendentiously by others, designated Law 57/1968 on 27 of July, regarding advance deposits given to be held in trust for the Construction. Amongst the few laws still valid before our Constitution, that if alright (with only 6 valid articles) in the eyes of the well intentioned it is clear, could be used, and is used (or ignored) to what is best convenient to whom obligated by it.
We have read in the last few days with regards to the interest the government is demonstrating for these properties from the sited builder “is to be finished or the monies to be returned”, in which surprises those who has consented and taken advantage of the unstoppable voracity of the town plan at the moment of cashing “their part” in the overwhelming taxes associated with the ale of properties.
They would do better in worrying about the reality. Do the purchasers have guarantors who can guarantee the refund which they have deposited? Almost surely they do not. If not all, many lack the obligatory guarantee in which we mentioned before hand.
Until now, we fear that no request made has worried excessively with regards to whether a guarantee exists or not. (Just a few years ago a lack of this guarantee could be considered a crime or offence, in which, not without reason has been modified), due to the reduction of the offence as an administrative infraction transaction, useless to the consumer who presents the complaint, it is delayed in time until the infinitive.
In relevance to the MARTINSA-FADESA case, and the foreseeable and similar process that would ensure that other companies of equal or somewhat inferior dimension (we should also ask where are all those enormous benefits obtained during the “real estate boom”), what is considered an “administrative” problem will be revealed as a scandal of great dimension. Thousands of families will see their live time savings in danger.
By chance will the banks condemn the enormous mortgage charges on the unfinished properties? Who will finish their properties and assume these charges? Will the financial institutions have enough liquid cash to confront these refunds for the amounts they guaranteed? Do the guarantees exist?
The absence of the civil effects of the lack of guarantees has sheltered the actual situation, and only when the purchase and sale contract, town licence, or agreement, are invalid of accrediting the existence of the list of guarantees, this unfortunate situation will not change.
The second question which few ask and without will now ask should be “is my guarantee valid?”
There are many in which, in view that their properties were not being handed over, that it was illegal, or inclusive that there was no initiative, have now gone to there guarantor thinking that they would respond in the good faith of the contract, only to find the first surprise: The bank (or insurance company) refuses to pay.
Some of which were able to litigate (which is not free, remember) succeeded finally to receive their money, but others found a second surprise: Their guarantor was useless.
If the financial sector can show something for it, it is the lack of transparency, and many guarantors are plagued by limitative clauses, outside of the law, such as lapses, conditions or terms, that, not in few occasions, are not appreciated by the judicial system, before a law that, even though simple, contains “terms” that can be an obstacle for its efficiency.
Once more, an “old” Law applied to modern society, is revealed to be ineffectual.
We hope that the legislator is, this time, more sharp and anticipates the effects to third parties, the consumer, from the prior lack of attention given.
Efectivamente, existe una vieja Ley, olvidada para algunos o interpretada tendenciosamente por otros, denominada Ley 57/1968 de 27 de julio, de anticipos entregados a Cuenta para la Construcción. Una Ley de las pocas que quedan vigentes desde antes de nuestra Constitución, que si bien (con sólo 6 artículos vigentes) es clara a los ojos del bienintencionado, puede utilizarse, y se utiliza (o se ignora) a mejor conveniencia del obligado por ella.
Hemos leído en estos días acerca del interés del gobierno en que las viviendas de la citada constructora “se terminen o se devuelva el dinero”, lo que sorprende en boca de quien ha consentido y aprovechado de la imparable voracidad urbanística a base de cobrar “su parte” en los abrumadores impuestos asociados a la venta de inmuebles.
Mejor harían en preocuparse de la realidad ¿Tendrán los compradores avales que garanticen la devolución de lo entregado? Seguramente no. Si no todos, muchos carecerán de ese obligatorio aval al que nos hemos referido antes.
Hasta hoy, nos tememos que ninguna instancia se haya preocupado en exceso acerca de su esta aval existía o no. (Hasta hace pocos años la falta de aval podía ser considerado como delito o falta, lo que, no sin falta de razón fue modificado), al quedar reducida su falta a una infracción administrativa cuya tramitación, inútil al consumidor que presente la denuncia, se demora en el tiempo hacia lo infinito.
Con la relevancia del caso MARTINSA-FADESA, y con el previsible y similar proceso que seguirán otras empresas de igual o algo inferior dimensión (habría que preguntarse también dónde están los ingentes beneficios obtenidos durante el “boom inmobiliario”), lo que se consideraba un problema “administrativo” se revelará como un escándalo de considerables dimensiones. Miles de familias verán peligrar los ahorros de toda una vida.
¿Acaso los bancos van a condonar las ingentes cargas hipotecarias sobre los pisos inacabados? ¿Quién va a acabar sus pisos y asumir estas cargas? ¿Tendrán las entidades financieras liquidez para afrontar las devoluciones de los importes que avalaron? ¿Existirán los avales?
La falta de efectos civiles de la carencia de aval ha amparado la situación actual, y sólo cuando un contrato de compra-venta, una licencia urbanística, o un convenio, sean nulos de no acreditarse la existencia de la línea de avales, esta lamentable situación no cambiará.
La segunda pregunta que pocos se hacen y sin duda se harán, debería de ser “¿Será válido mi aval?
No es baladí esta cuestión. Ya son muchos los que, vista que no se les entregaba la vivienda, que esta era “ilegal”, o incluso que no se iniciaba, ya han acudido al aval pensando que este respondía del “buen fin” de su contrato, para encontrarse con la primera sorpresa: El banco (o compañía de seguros) se niega a pagar.
Algunos de aquellos que pudieron pleitear (lo que no es gratis, recuérdese) lograron por fin su dinero, pero otros se encontraron con la segunda sorpresa: Su aval era inútil.
Si el sector financiero puede hacer gala de algo, lo es de falta de transparencia, y muchos avales está plagados de cláusulas limitativas, ajenas a la Ley, como caducidades, condicionantes o términos oscuros, que, no en pocas ocasiones, no son apreciados por el sistema judicial, ante una Ley que, aunque simple, contiene “términos oscuros” que pueden ser un obstáculo para su eficacia.
De nuevo, una Ley “antigua” aplicada a una sociedad moderna, se revela ineficaz.
Esperemos que el legislador sea, esta vez, más listo y se anticipe a los efectos hacia terceros, los consumidores, de su falta previa de atención.
If you have purchased a property of plan
Do you have guarantee?
This is the first question today that buyers are making when they purchase a property from MARTINSA-FADESA , and, without a doubt, it is the first question that everyone should make who is thinking of immersing in the buying/selling of a property of plan, it does not matter if it is a Cooperative, or a promoter…………
In fact, there exists an old Law, forgotten by some or interpreted tendentiously by others, designated Law 57/1968 on 27 of July, regarding advance deposits given to be held in trust for the Construction. Amongst the few laws still valid before our Constitution, that if alright (with only 6 valid articles) in the eyes of the well intentioned it is clear, could be used, and is used (or ignored) to what is best convenient to whom obligated by it.
We have read in the last few days with regards to the interest the government is demonstrating for these properties from the sited builder “is to be finished or the monies to be returned”, in which surprises those who has consented and taken advantage of the unstoppable voracity of the town plan at the moment of cashing “their part” in the overwhelming taxes associated with the ale of properties.
They would do better in worrying about the reality. Do the purchasers have guarantors who can guarantee the refund which they have deposited? Almost surely they do not. If not all, many lack the obligatory guarantee in which we mentioned before hand.
Until now, we fear that no request made has worried excessively with regards to whether a guarantee exists or not. (Just a few years ago a lack of this guarantee could be considered a crime or offence, in which, not without reason has been modified), due to the reduction of the offence as an administrative infraction transaction, useless to the consumer who presents the complaint, it is delayed in time until the infinitive.
In relevance to the MARTINSA-FADESA case, and the foreseeable and similar process that would ensure that other companies of equal or somewhat inferior dimension (we should also ask where are all those enormous benefits obtained during the “real estate boom”), what is considered an “administrative” problem will be revealed as a scandal of great dimension. Thousands of families will see their live time savings in danger.
By chance will the banks condemn the enormous mortgage charges on the unfinished properties? Who will finish their properties and assume these charges? Will the financial institutions have enough liquid cash to confront these refunds for the amounts they guaranteed? Do the guarantees exist?
The absence of the civil effects of the lack of guarantees has sheltered the actual situation, and only when the purchase and sale contract, town licence, or agreement, are invalid of accrediting the existence of the list of guarantees, this unfortunate situation will not change.
The second question which few ask and without will now ask should be “is my guarantee valid?”
There are many in which, in view that their properties were not being handed over, that it was illegal, or inclusive that there was no initiative, have now gone to there guarantor thinking that they would respond in the good faith of the contract, only to find the first surprise: The bank (or insurance company) refuses to pay.
Some of which were able to litigate (which is not free, remember) succeeded finally to receive their money, but others found a second surprise: Their guarantor was useless.
If the financial sector can show something for it, it is the lack of transparency, and many guarantors are plagued by limitative clauses, outside of the law, such as lapses, conditions or terms, that, not in few occasions, are not appreciated by the judicial system, before a law that, even though simple, contains “terms” that can be an obstacle for its efficiency.
Once more, an “old” Law applied to modern society, is revealed to be ineffectual.
We hope that the legislator is, this time, more sharp and anticipates the effects to third parties, the consumer, from the prior lack of attention given.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)