Construction defects and lack of passive joinder

defectos construccion

 

In claims for construction defects based on the contractual breach promoter, There is no need passive listisconsorcio

 Consult your case now

The contractua breachl generated by the delivery of housing under different fitness to pacted generates an obligation to eliminate, repair and rectify defects caused by the promoters-sellers. These can subsequently repeated against other participants, without any liability litis consortium needed.

The Provincial Court of Madrid, 20th section, It has pronounced 24 July 2019 in its judgment number 347/2019 sobre los construction defects a community of owners for this. It considered that the promoter-sellers are responsible for invalidating defects that had the building, notwithstanding that they could, later, repeat with other participants as architects or technical architects who participated in its realization.

Fact background,,es,Juan Alberto and Paulina filed suit against FTA,,es,Asset Securitization Fund,,es,requesting the declaration of nullity for abusive of the floor and ceiling clauses contained in the novation contract of the mortgage loan of,,es,with the corresponding refund of amounts unduly collected,,es,The Securitization Fund Management Company,,es,Beech,,es,acting on behalf of FTA, he responded to said claim alleging that he lacked passive legitimacy since the entity had no legal personality and that it constituted only a private and open fund and that therefore the passive legitimization corresponded to BBVA as successor of Catalunya Banc that was the Company fund constituent,,es

In Canet de Berenguer (Valencia) a community building was built by D. Fermin and D. Fructuoso.

Later they emerged cracks and flaws that limited and prevented the purpose for which the building was constructed.

The Community of owners the building decided to bring suit against the promoters and sellers of the same.

Primera Instancia

The 23 January 2019 el Juzgado de Primera Instancia nº 2 Fuenlabrada gave judgment upholding in full demand.

He condemned the recumbent inheritance and the unknown heirs and ignored D. Fructuoso, in his capacity as promoter, to perform the necessary work to eliminate, repair and remedy construction defects property. All this within two months. And, in the event that such works will not run on time, He condemned the defendants to pay the amount equivalent to the cost of works amounting to 84.651,84 euros.

Against judgment, The defendants appealed.

The complaints were:

1º Nullity actions. It was unknown if the date of issuance of the expert report, the expert was registered with the Official College of Architects of Valencia, end it considered essential so that he could deliver expertise.

2° Infringement of arts. 218 and 469.1.2º the LEC and art. 1591 CC by inadequacy of breach of contract action brought in the demand to convict based on the decennial liability the latter provision.

3° Infringement obligation to sue all those involved in construction to determine the decennial responsibility of art. 1951 CC.

4° Infringement of arts. 218.2 and 412 LEC and the arts. 1101 and 1124 CC in relation to the arts. 1591 CC and arts. 17 and 18 LOE.

5No. Error in assessing evidence.

Provincial Court

The 24 July 2019 20th Section of the Provincial Court of Madrid resolved the dispute by dismissing the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the first instance.

First, the Court concluded that the first three grounds of appeal put forward by the appellant should be dismissed.

Neither the plaintiff, nor the sentence defendants convicted under Art. 1591 CC, but they did based on the art. 1101, 1124 and concordant CC.

According to Article. 1101 CC, “are subject to compensation for damages which in fulfilling its obligations, incur fraud, neglect or default and that in any way contravene the tenor of those ". And it was this precept which he was alleged to cause.

In the same way, Article. 1124 CC determined that "the right to terminate the obligations implied in reciprocal understanding, for the case that one does not fulfill the required incumbent, the injured party may choose ... between demanding compliance or resolution of the obligation, with compensation for damages and payment of interest in both cases ".

So, to demand the liability of those provisions there was no need to sue all actors have participated in the construction process. This is regardless of that responsibility regardless of jointly and severally, so that there was no need to talk about passive joinder.

He referred the audience to STS 2 February 2012 by which, “conforme al art. 17.9 LOE, responsibilities in that article to be understood without prejudice to reaching the seller of buildings or built against the purchaser under the purchase agreement signed between them parts, a los arts. 1484 ff. the Civil Code and other legislation applicable to the sale”.

Settled doctrine of the 1st Chamber of the Supreme Court declared that the responsibility of the promoter-seller stemmed from its breach of contract for not meeting promoted and sold houses fitness for purpose for which they were intended.

Thus, el incumplimiento de tal obligación generaba un aliud pro alio” que era sancionable con la reparación.

Surgía así la responsabilidad del demandado de los contratos de compraventa suscritos, en su calidad de vendedor en base al art. 1101 del CC y del incumplimiento o cumplimiento defectuoso de su obligación de entrega.

Sobre el motivo cuarto de impugnación, la Audiencia consideró que también debía ser desestimado. Ninguno de los argumentos del recurso había logrado desvirtuar la razonable valoración de la prueba pericial practicada.

Podía ser que el Arquitecto superior y los Arquitectos técnicos no hubieran recibido ninguna reclamación de la Comunidad. Podía ser incluso que hubieran caducado o prescrito las acciones para exigirles responsabilidades por los daños y vicios y defectos en la edificación. Pero a pesar de ello, seguían teniendo claro interés en el asunto pues continuaba en cuestión su buen hacer o prestigio profesional.

Resultaba absolutamente indiferente para el éxito de la acción promovida si los daños que se habían producido eran o no estructurales. In any case, el perito dejó claro que lo eran.

El informe pericial era correcto, no existían discrepancias entre el cuerpo y sus conclusiones. A pesar de todas las supuestas contradicciones que decían los recurrentes que había incurrido el perito.

So, la cuestión no pasaba por tenerse que acreditar el tipo de mantenimiento que se realizó en los elementos del edificio, but si su falta había podido ser el origen de los vicios y defectos por los que se demandaba.

Finalmente concluyó la Audiencia que si los recurrentes consideraban que “no existía relación de causalidad entre la actividad de promotor de su causante con el resultado dañoso acreditado, como si eso le eximiera de responsabilidad, o que otros intervinientes en el proceso constructivo pudieran ser los directos responsables del mismo, solo tienen que exigirle el tanto que a cada uno de ellos le pudiera corresponder mediante el ejercicio de las oportunas acciones judiciales.

Por todo ello la Audiencia desestimó el recurso de apelación interpuesto y confirmó la sentencia dictada en instancia.

Conclusion

La responsabilidad del promotor-vendedor nace por el incumplimiento contractual causado por la entrega defectuosa y sin las aptitudes pactadas de las viviendas objeto de contrato. Los construction defects   deberán ser subsanados por el promotor-vendedor.

 Consult your case now

Leave a Reply

Language


Set as default language
 Edit Translation


Subscribe to receive a book PDF


Just for signing up receive via email the link to download the book "How to change lawyers" en format digital.
Sign up here

Sígueme en Twitter



Subscribe me

* This field is required