Buyers win against Santa Maria Green Hills

LoadingFavourite

This topic contains 52 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of Anonymous Anonymous 7 years, 10 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #54645
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Now I know there are some people in here with an interest in Santa Maria Green Hills and its developer.

    Don’t know if you picked up on this story. Just got around to writing it up. Another scalp for Carlos Comitre. Good on him.

    Court orders developer of Santa Maria Green Hills to return stage payments

    Can anyone send me a photo of SMGH? I don’t have one.

    Mark

  • #89179
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Mark

    Go to www,santamariagreenhills.es.
    http://santamariagreenhills.es/
    There is a photo gallary with lots of photos.
    If you need anymore let me know as I have loads.

    As can be seen its a dreadfull place with no future
    Now at least there is some direction and someone has unheld the law.
    The plaintive will probalbly never be paid however as they are in dire straights but I would bet that those with Bank Guarantees really welcome this news and the Banks are now going to panic. When is a property deemed finished.?
    Even those that have completed will welcome this news as hopefully its the begining of the end and we want it sorted as much as anyone else.

    Just Frank 8)

  • #89181
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Oh the next few months will be very interesting 😆

    Green Hills is on the P.G.U plan alongside Los Lagos,La Reserva de Marbella and numerous others with planning issues,claims of irregular builds.and around 50.0000 + with no habitation licences so they all have uncertain futures.
    Book that solicitor as he/she appears to be the biz an
    All of those fighting for those on Green Hills on the forums have been proved right all along and well done to you all.
    One thing has been noted is that the Golf Course wasnt part on the private purchase contract at least not on all contracts.
    So if this is to be the norm then local planning in Spain is going to be worthless.

    Just Frank 8)

  • #89186
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Thank you Mark for posting this. 😀

    Frank …now I can see why you back tracked your trashy statement to me on the EOS GREEN HILLS development forum. You don’t question or denegrate Marks statement do you? How could you? It’s in print, almost verbatum as I wrote on the GH forum.
    For many years Frank /Dan you have followed me around the forums trashing anything that I posted, I would only post the facts that I know to be accurate as I have always told you. Carlos is held in high esteem by many lawyers for the work he does in the fight for justice in Spain.
    The fact that only 45 apartments have completed out of the 196 built says everything about the problems on this development, regardless of the photographs.

  • #89187
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Great for the Lawyer & the Judge. We should all buy these two a Cava or two.

  • #89188
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    FANTASTIC news – we certainly need more results like this.

    Congratulations to all involved.

  • #89189
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    It really is fantastic news Suzanne as this will now set a precedent that we never had before this High Court ruling. The Judges in Marbella will now have a “yardstick” to follow when passing judgements on like cases and should take on board the comments made by the presiding Judge. At least we can live in hope!! 🙂

  • #89193
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    One of the interesting developments with this latest success (well done Carlos!) is that the Judge also declared the resolutions in Court No.3 in Marbella were not valid.

    This is the court that became infamous as always ruling for the developer in many cases involving Green Hills. Many purchasers in identical situations as this latest case found their ‘watertight’ cases trampled on by the judges – even the Town Hall’s own Planning Dept. ‘witness’ testifying the development was illegal in the TH’s eyes was disregarded as irrelevant.

    Am wondering now if so many cases lost in this graveyard court can be appealed?

  • #89194
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    “as this will now set a precedent that we never had before this High Court ruling. The Judges in Marbella will now have a “yardstick”

    I hope that I am wrong. The precedent had always been there i.e. If the basis of a contract is illegal than all that follows is illegal.

  • #89195
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Shakeel – I’ve been thinking the same thing.

    Cases have been won in the high court & they’ve been lost there too, in favour of developers & illegal builds. I’m not sure that any ‘precedent’ has been set – but time will tell.

  • #89197
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Suzanne: great minds ………………..

  • #89200
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    I think the precident has been set and will be used to apply to cases for Green Hills. I cannot comment on other developments. As Charlie says, cases have been lost in the Marbella Courts that have had the same circumstances surrounding them as this current case. The judges in Marbella have consistently ruled in favour of the developer. Here’s hoping that will change for GH victims.

    From the article:

    The ruling will give hope to many foreign property investors who are trapped in off-plan property purchases of illegal properties in the area.

    I’m being positive in what up until now has been a negative situation. Perhaps (not suprisingly) I stand alone in this view.

    Charlie wrote:

    Am wondering now if so many cases lost in this graveyard court can be appealed?

    Me too, Charlie. 😕

  • #89209
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Each & every case should be dug up & taken to Courts.
    Investigations should be carried out on the Judges, their friends, relatives, bank accounts in Spain, Andorra, Gibraltar & further a list of assets should be prepared along with all chattels. By EU body. As nobody in Spain can be trusted either for their integrity or competence.

  • #89210
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Each & every case should be dug up & taken to Courts.

    Shakeel I could not agree more. Unfortunately, all of these Court cases cost a fortune in legal fees. If you lose, often costs are awarded against you. This on top of the loss of deposits in the region of £75,000. Many people do not have the financial resources to take on more legal action.

  • #89214
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Maybe the EU should set up a Body of closely monitored & regulated lawyers to bring justice to all innocent victims of illegal properties in Spain – and the Kingdom of Spain should pay the legal fees. 💡

  • #89216
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Shakeel – I totally agree, if only someone had the determination and resources.
    Court no. 3 had such a negative reputation, lawyers were filled with dread when allocated this particular court, believing losing their case was almost a foregone conclusion.

    I have the names of some of these judges if you’re interested. 😉

  • #89219
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Claire you posted

    Thank you Mark for posting this.

    Frank …now I can see why you back tracked your trashy statement to me on the EOS GREEN HILLS development forum. You don’t question or denegrate Marks statement do you? How could you? It’s in print, almost verbatum as I wrote on the GH forum.
    For many years Frank /Dan you have followed me around the forums trashing anything that I posted, I would only post the facts that I know to be accurate as I have always told you. Carlos is held in high esteem by many lawyers for the work he does in the fight for justice in Spain.
    The fact that only 45 apartments have completed out of the 196 built says everything about the problems on this development, regardless of the photographs.

    1Yes I do question Marks statements if I don’t agree with them as unlike some I don’t post to please or creep( please refer to previous postings)
    2 When someone posts that they are NOT INTERESTED IN SPAIN ONLY GREEN HILLS and doesn’t have any tangible interest in we do question the motives of that person where we own property.
    3 Where have I ever doubted that your solicitor wasn’t good. I have in fact congratulated you all for the efforts both here and on the E.O.S(please take the time to read the postings since the judgement and where on earth have I trashed your postings)
    4 As I own property on Santa Maria Green Hills WE the committee are well aware of the problems on this and dozens of other developments and we/I have every right to post negative and positive news regarding OUR development. Why is it only you that have a problem with this.
    5 Mark asked for photos and was happy to supply and surely its up to everyone to decide for themselves if Green Hills is a bad as being portrayed. Whats the problem here.
    6 45 /46/47 completed SO ? All I do know is that I have never heard of one that doesn’t love the place >Why do you have a problem with this as no one else does.
    7 Not many can post as to facts they know are correct. We all post within the intention of telling truths as we see them and are information received.
    8 Now why you choose to now post this outburst for no reason is beyond me but there again why I am not surprised.
    Clair/Tish. Let the rest of the forum members read my postings here and on the E.O.S and again form there own opinions.( Just Dan on E.O.S)
    9 Is this rant down to .I told you so tantrum.?
    10 Don’t know what it is and perhaps I have been around the Spanish Legal System to long but something’s just don’t add up with ruling.
    Why on earth you have a problem with me or others that have completed on Green Hills is beyond us all.
    We want closure also .We want deposits paid back but reality is they wont.
    We want the properties to be sold on so that we can then have management fees paid in full and move on with our excellent committee.
    Must apologise after reading my posting again on E.O.S
    I did close with “Perhaps now you will get off my back” Its now on this forum. (was that it )?

    Claire you are well aware that I refuse to get into a slagging match with you which degenerates the forums and accordingly decided to not post on 2 threads on E.O.S due solely to your unprovoked insults.
    My time sending P/Ms to many because of me not posting takes lots of time I cant afford.
    We all noticed that since I stopped posting so did you.
    Why did you chase me onto a forum where you know I have tangible interest in with the soul intention to insult.

    Mark
    I do apologise as I did agree not to respond.
    Claire .Please don’t read my postings then there will be no need for you to again respond in this manner. The past is the past.
    Apologise to the forum members also as none of us hopefully don’t want repeats of the past.

    Now to move on
    I am at the moment trying to get the full summary of judgement from a litigation Solicitor in Malaga as his first responce that he had not heard of this Judgement.
    Will let you all know whatever I can find out and if in the meantime anyone else can get it I would love to have a copy to post on our Santa Maria Green Hills Website.
    At least something is happening or appears to be so thats has to be good.

    Just Frank 8)

  • #89413
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Yes, cost will be an issue & if a judge knows that cases are being brought against another judge. You can bet that the cost will be awarded.

    I think a joint action should be brought & cost shared. I understand that Spain is not very much in favour of a joint action, that this should be taken up at the EU Courts.

    Although, I am not affected by any of the going on’s. I will be happy to contribute towards the cost of a Joint action.

    If my contribution can help an endemic problem & protect/help in recovering the reputation of Spain. A country that I love. I will consider this as money well spent.

  • #89220
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Yes, cost will be an issue & if a judge knows that cases are being brought against another judge. You can bet that the cost will be awarded.

    I think a joint action should be brought & cost shared. I understand that Spain is not very much in favour of a joint action, that this should be taken up at the EU Courts.

    Although, I am not affected by any of the going on’s. I will be happy to contribute towards the cost of a Joint action.

    If my contribution can help an endemic problem & protect/help in recovering the reputation of Spain. A country that I love. I will consider this as money well spent.

  • #89415
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Just Frank
    I agreed with Mark that I would not respond to your posts on this forum …whatever untruths you write.

  • #89221
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Just Frank
    I agreed with Mark that I would not respond to your posts on this forum …whatever untruths you write.

  • #89428
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Suzanne

    i agree, the Spanish authorities should indeed pay for the legal costs of many cases ‘re-tried’ that went in favour of the developer the first time round. While they are at it, compensation from dodgy lawyers and agents would do wonders for Spains reputation. Apart from the obvious justice, this would hopefully send a warning shot to potential new bad guys, and restore confidence in future potential buyers.

    Claire

    I’m sorry you have to put up with such rubbish. We are all sick of it as well.

  • #89228
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Suzanne

    i agree, the Spanish authorities should indeed pay for the legal costs of many cases ‘re-tried’ that went in favour of the developer the first time round. While they are at it, compensation from dodgy lawyers and agents would do wonders for Spains reputation. Apart from the obvious justice, this would hopefully send a warning shot to potential new bad guys, and restore confidence in future potential buyers.

    Claire

    I’m sorry you have to put up with such rubbish. We are all sick of it as well.

  • #89435
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Hi
    I have been in contact with some other owners on Santa Maria Green Hills and all are of the same opinion the Banks will almost certainly be stepping to protect their assets and the developers will be forced into administration should the case be as transparent as its has been posted.

    The only secured creditors will be those that have completed, everyone else will sadly lose the deposits and legal costs.(Some may continue with claims against their Bank Guarantee but don’t think they will be offering a defence on the level of this one) and no precedence has been set.

    This time last year we had only 19 completed now we have 45 and more almost at the keys stage.
    Many more would have completed but the ole credit crunch and the exchange rates have resulted just not being able too.(oh and habitation licences has caused some problems but that’s everywhere.)
    By all accounts many are now in a panic to complete or loose their investments.

    Claire. I don’t post untruths which is the same as being called a liar.
    I suggest you ask Mark and again please refrain from any further insulting remarks.
    Goodsitch 44 .Can see where the term you keep referring to when you post the We and US. Question answered. 🙄
    Likewise the Step Outside Thread has not been used for a while so lets keep it that way.
    We have for a while a situation that have our say .Agree or disagree and move on.
    The number of posters have gone up and topics debated in manner that many seemed to approve.

    Just Frank 8)

  • #89235
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Hi
    I have been in contact with some other owners on Santa Maria Green Hills and all are of the same opinion the Banks will almost certainly be stepping to protect their assets and the developers will be forced into administration should the case be as transparent as its has been posted.

    The only secured creditors will be those that have completed, everyone else will sadly lose the deposits and legal costs.(Some may continue with claims against their Bank Guarantee but don’t think they will be offering a defence on the level of this one) and no precedence has been set.

    This time last year we had only 19 completed now we have 45 and more almost at the keys stage.
    Many more would have completed but the ole credit crunch and the exchange rates have resulted just not being able too.(oh and habitation licences has caused some problems but that’s everywhere.)
    By all accounts many are now in a panic to complete or loose their investments.

    Claire. I don’t post untruths which is the same as being called a liar.
    I suggest you ask Mark and again please refrain from any further insulting remarks.
    Goodsitch 44 .Can see where the term you keep referring to when you post the We and US. Question answered. 🙄
    Likewise the Step Outside Thread has not been used for a while so lets keep it that way.
    We have for a while a situation that have our say .Agree or disagree and move on.
    The number of posters have gone up and topics debated in manner that many seemed to approve.

    Just Frank 8)

  • #89534
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Hi

    Is there anyone that can help me with anymore information regarding this case.

    I have had a Litigation Solicitor enquire in the Malaga Courts and any help would be appreciated in particular the part where the case was won on the issue of the golf course.

    Just Frank 8)

  • #89334
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Hi

    Is there anyone that can help me with anymore information regarding this case.

    I have had a Litigation Solicitor enquire in the Malaga Courts and any help would be appreciated in particular the part where the case was won on the issue of the golf course.

    Just Frank 8)

  • #89344
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    😆 As far as I know, it was not won on the golf course issue. It was just one facet of many that was mentioned.
    I’m amazed at the lengths you are going to on this Frank especially when it will have no affect on your situation at GH. You’ve signed /sealed on GH and are deliriously happy there. The information is of real importance to those with Court cases against the developer, past & present. It’s not yours or mine or anyone elses business to know the details…. It’s between the lawyer and his client to know those minute details. 😉

  • #89544
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    😆 As far as I know, it was not won on the golf course issue. It was just one facet of many that was mentioned.
    I’m amazed at the lengths you are going to on this Frank especially when it will have no affect on your situation at GH. You’ve signed /sealed on GH and are deliriously happy there. The information is of real importance to those with Court cases against the developer, past & present. It’s not yours or mine or anyone elses business to know the details…. It’s between the lawyer and his client to know those minute details. 😉

  • #89345
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Claire
    As a property owner of Santa Maria Green Hills we owners are of course interested in all factors relating you OUR development as you would if you have planning issues in your street.
    It may or may not be your business and I am not rude to say its not.
    It is the business of anyone who also has a case pending against the developer or the bank guarantee if as you say a precedence has been set then lets have the details to help future cases.
    The factor regarding the golf course may be part of a precedence is clearly a legal issue as it formed no part of the purchase contract
    Why do you again have a problem with what is an important ruling FOR US which promoted the Editor to set up its own the for open discussion . LETS DISCUSS IT ?
    Why is it again you have a problem with this.
    This development as posted is your only interest in Spain, please forgive us owners for having a valid interest also.
    Lets have all issues both good and bad regarding this and other developments to give them a good airing as many are worried sick and perhaps this may help some.
    What business is it of yours if I /WE are overjoyed with our purchase or this snide remark.
    We made or decision as the option we chose (Right /Wrong is anyone’s guess at the moment.
    We on Green Hills support everyone that wishes to complete or not whichever they feel is right for them.
    We on Green Hills offer our support either way.
    We on Green Hills are interested in the future of OUR development and we don’t need you telling us that the details of a court ruling has a direct baring on us is none of our business.
    Now do you have any information that may be of interest regarding my request or not.
    Is there anyone else that can help us on Green Hills on this issue please.

    Just Frank 8)

  • #89545
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Claire
    As a property owner of Santa Maria Green Hills we owners are of course interested in all factors relating you OUR development as you would if you have planning issues in your street.
    It may or may not be your business and I am not rude to say its not.
    It is the business of anyone who also has a case pending against the developer or the bank guarantee if as you say a precedence has been set then lets have the details to help future cases.
    The factor regarding the golf course may be part of a precedence is clearly a legal issue as it formed no part of the purchase contract
    Why do you again have a problem with what is an important ruling FOR US which promoted the Editor to set up its own the for open discussion . LETS DISCUSS IT ?
    Why is it again you have a problem with this.
    This development as posted is your only interest in Spain, please forgive us owners for having a valid interest also.
    Lets have all issues both good and bad regarding this and other developments to give them a good airing as many are worried sick and perhaps this may help some.
    What business is it of yours if I /WE are overjoyed with our purchase or this snide remark.
    We made or decision as the option we chose (Right /Wrong is anyone’s guess at the moment.
    We on Green Hills support everyone that wishes to complete or not whichever they feel is right for them.
    We on Green Hills offer our support either way.
    We on Green Hills are interested in the future of OUR development and we don’t need you telling us that the details of a court ruling has a direct baring on us is none of our business.
    Now do you have any information that may be of interest regarding my request or not.
    Is there anyone else that can help us on Green Hills on this issue please.

    Just Frank 8)

  • #89346
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    @Just Frank wrote:

    Claire
    The factor regarding the golf course may be part of a precedence is clearly a legal issue as it formed no part of the purchase contract

    Some people DID have the Golf course in their contract. Charlie did for one. We, on the other hand were told upfront it was not going to be built. Many GH purchasers were unaware of this. Depends what month you bought.
    I have no problems Frank. Mark started this thread but as you well know I posted this info on the GH development forum days earlier. You undermined my info as you always do and posted to that effect. As I told you there. ANY PRECEDENCE THAT MAY BE SET WILL BE FOR GH CASES ONLY. NOT for every illegal development.
    I am not going into the whys and wherefores here, but it was explained to us by our lawyer at a meeting we had in London. At that time no “precedence” had been set.
    The information I posted was directly from the lawyer concerned who emailed “his family”, of which I am one.
    Please don’t keep saying I have a problem with GH…I DON’T. I just want to see the people that do, get treated fairly and justly. That is my interest and will remain so until justice is seen to be done.
    Your lawyer is supposed to know it all,(according to you) let her find the info for you.
    After your historical rudeness to me..No I would not tell you anything.

  • #89546
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    @Just Frank wrote:

    Claire
    The factor regarding the golf course may be part of a precedence is clearly a legal issue as it formed no part of the purchase contract

    Some people DID have the Golf course in their contract. Charlie did for one. We, on the other hand were told upfront it was not going to be built. Many GH purchasers were unaware of this. Depends what month you bought.
    I have no problems Frank. Mark started this thread but as you well know I posted this info on the GH development forum days earlier. You undermined my info as you always do and posted to that effect. As I told you there. ANY PRECEDENCE THAT MAY BE SET WILL BE FOR GH CASES ONLY. NOT for every illegal development.
    I am not going into the whys and wherefores here, but it was explained to us by our lawyer at a meeting we had in London. At that time no “precedence” had been set.
    The information I posted was directly from the lawyer concerned who emailed “his family”, of which I am one.
    Please don’t keep saying I have a problem with GH…I DON’T. I just want to see the people that do, get treated fairly and justly. That is my interest and will remain so until justice is seen to be done.
    Your lawyer is supposed to know it all,(according to you) let her find the info for you.
    After your historical rudeness to me..No I would not tell you anything.

  • #89349
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Claire
    I was asking the forum member for help on behalf of GreenHills owners
    Its your choice to help or not.
    Clearly not and I will find the information elsewhere as you have nothing to contribute.
    My solicitor is a conveyance solicitor and nothing else and looks after her clients well as all will confirm.
    My case is being dealt with by a litigation solicitor who feels confident in my case. He is finding that the details are vauge regarding this case which is hardly good is it in the fight to get justice for all.
    Of course confidential information cant be posted but surely any success should form the basics of where and how those with problems can direct their efforts.
    I questioned the golf course issue as a valid question.
    Its you that says that your interest is only with GreenHills and its you that says its a problem.End Of!
    I was told Phase 1 was going to be built but there again thats another story.
    Gosh 😯 Didnt know you are one of the FAMILY 😯
    Being in those circles no wonder that gives you the right.
    I bow in awe. 😉

    Just Frank 8)
    Please dont reply as my new years resolution is being tested to the limits. 😆

    Good Evening Claire.

  • #89549
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Claire
    I was asking the forum member for help on behalf of GreenHills owners
    Its your choice to help or not.
    Clearly not and I will find the information elsewhere as you have nothing to contribute.
    My solicitor is a conveyance solicitor and nothing else and looks after her clients well as all will confirm.
    My case is being dealt with by a litigation solicitor who feels confident in my case. He is finding that the details are vauge regarding this case which is hardly good is it in the fight to get justice for all.
    Of course confidential information cant be posted but surely any success should form the basics of where and how those with problems can direct their efforts.
    I questioned the golf course issue as a valid question.
    Its you that says that your interest is only with GreenHills and its you that says its a problem.End Of!
    I was told Phase 1 was going to be built but there again thats another story.
    Gosh 😯 Didnt know you are one of the FAMILY 😯
    Being in those circles no wonder that gives you the right.
    I bow in awe. 😉

    Just Frank 8)
    Please dont reply as my new years resolution is being tested to the limits. 😆

    Good Evening Claire.

  • #89365
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Hi.
    Have the basics back from my litigation solicitors and despite claims that this ruling sets a precedence and this is a success.
    1 It sets a precedence on one minor issue
    2 The developer has no funds to meet the court ruling.
    Seem the buyers solicitors gave the developers a good hiding but apparently the defence was non existent.
    This is good news 😕 for those with cases and those not so good for those that have completed.
    The whole problem is still the fact that the developer is broke.
    Banks are not paying out on Guarantees.
    We all still have this limbo situation.

    Just Frank 8)

  • #89565
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Hi.
    Have the basics back from my litigation solicitors and despite claims that this ruling sets a precedence and this is a success.
    1 It sets a precedence on one minor issue
    2 The developer has no funds to meet the court ruling.
    Seem the buyers solicitors gave the developers a good hiding but apparently the defence was non existent.
    This is good news 😕 for those with cases and those not so good for those that have completed.
    The whole problem is still the fact that the developer is broke.
    Banks are not paying out on Guarantees.
    We all still have this limbo situation.

    Just Frank 8)

  • #90035
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    ANOTHER VICTORY TODAY in the High Court against the developer Marbella Vista Golf, Santa Maria Green Hills.

    This is the second success this year on this illegal development (revoked building licence/no LFO).

    The judge (a different one to the last case…..a good sign?!) basically uses all the same rulings against the developer as the judge did in January.

    Are the wheels of justice finally starting to squeak?

    Again, well done our lawyer, Carlos Comitre. You did well in our and Claire’s cases, great to see you getting justice for others too. Keep the snowball rolling.

  • #90036
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    charlie

    yes, well done indeed to Carlos. So good to read that. You would like to think that with every case won, it makes future cases on similar issues, harder to deny justice. Or is that to much like common sense?

  • #90038
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    I’ve just received the great news too! 😀 Well done Carlos!
    I’m really pleased for the couple involved. They’ve stuck with it and got their Justice.
    Just goes to show that the verdicts from the Marbella Courts are questionable to say the least. 👿

  • #90040
    Profile photo of katy
    katy
    Spectator

    Well done! 😀 Let us hope the floodgates are opening.

    Does anyone know what happened re. forum discussions on if SMGH had, or would shortly have an FLO? I know someone who looked at a property rental there some months ago and was told by the rental manager that it did have an FLO 😮

  • #90041
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Well done to Carlos, Soon he will get the same fame as the lawyer who won his case in the 60’s to allow women to wear a bikini on the beach. If I recall correctly that was in the Alicante province.

  • #90049
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    SMGH does not have LFO at this moment in time, Katy.

    Katy we have made the same number of posts!! 😆

  • #90051
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    I read a book last year called (ghosts of spain) and it appears that the first bikini worn was in benidorm on the say so of Franco. Why because t was his wife. Something to do with his friend there the mayor, can’t quite remember.

  • #90052
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    “I read a book last year called (ghosts of spain) and it appears that the first bikini worn was in benidorm on the say so of Franco.

    It was in Benidorm. It was not on Franco’s say. The lady was Scandinavian & to the best of my knowledge Franco wife is/was not Scandinavian. Franco would not have married a non Catholic. On the other hand if she was his wife than Franco must have called his bluff to the nation by saying to the Spaniards due you really want to expose & inflict such fine frame of a women’s body to the world . ( Please note I am being kind to Mrs Franco )

    Why because t was his wife. Something to do with his friend there the mayor, can’t quite remember.

    ” Maybe his wife fitted in a large brown envelope.

  • #90056
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    dont know where you got your info from but read ghosts of spain (fact) not fiction

  • #90058
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    @katy wrote:

    ….was told by the rental manager that it did have an FLO 😮

    The developer says the same.
    They say they have it through the Administrative Silence Rule………as if that could be applied to a development with a revoked building licence. 🙄

    Even one of the ‘bendy’ judges in a past case skimmed over the subject by saying “Ah, I see there is a LFO through AS”. They make it up as they go along to fit in with their (pre-decided) ruling. Like saying the evidence from the Town Hall confirming the b/l was still revoked as being “irrelevant”.

    It’s no wonder the good lawyers are having a hard time of it in court.

  • #90061
    Profile photo of katy
    katy
    Spectator

    Franco’s wife in a Bikini, have you ever seen photos of her 😯 😉

    The change of moral standards came with the growth of tourism. When I was a child Men were not allowed to walk about without a shirt except on the beach (not a bad idea when you think about some you see now!).

    As a teenager when I used to stay with my Spanish friend we both had to go out with her elder Sister and Boyfriend as they were not allowed to be alone as a couple!

    Why are we on Bikinis on this thread 😕

    Yes SMGH has notices all over the area saying that they have an LFO. I remember thediscussion had they/hadn’t they but wasn’t sure of the outcome.

  • #90068
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    @katy wrote:

    Yes SMGH has notices all over the area saying that they have an LFO. I remember the discussion had they/hadn’t they but wasn’t sure of the outcome.

    That’s outrageous! 😈

  • #90069
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    yes it is odd that we talk about bikinis, but as we are on ths subject, if you read the book (ghosts in spain) i suggest it was actually, although unwittingly Franco who started off package holiday. Don’t beleve me READ THE BOOK.

  • #90070
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    ” although unwittingly Franco who started off package holiday. Don’t beleve me READ THE BOOK. “

    Franco, did start package holidays & was not done unwittingly. It was one of his ways to support its economy that was in dire straits. You cannot believe everything you read in a book a good example of it that history is written/told by the Victor, does this mean that other side did not have anything to write about of their facts or how they saw it.

    I stick to my side of it, i.e. she was not Franco’s wife. Katy posting is very much a reflection of the Spanish society at the time. Franco would have had the whole Clergy on to him. The Clergy was very powerful at the time as many would argue that it was the military & the clergy which kept him there for the period that he did, while self preserving their own interest.

    This is my last posting on the subject as the thread does not cover yellow polka dot bikinis.

  • #90071
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    thankfully its your last posting!!! however the said bikini was not yellow dotted

  • #90074
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    @shakeel wrote:

    ” This is my last posting on the subject as the thread does not cover yellow polka dot bikinis.

    Good boy.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.