Chronological dossier · updated 13 August 2026
Sun Park functioned physically as a hotel across divided properties; the operator’s identity, title and perimeter changed or were disputed over time. This page reconstructs how debt, removal of voting rights, offices, custody, certificates, litigation, security and works appear connected in the records—and how those records reached Insolvency 36/2012, other courts and the Acosta Matos project.
The issue in this case—not a residential abstraction
Horizontal division did not turn Sun Park into a residential complex or erase its hotel reality. At the same time, the hotel’s economic unity did not erase private titles or merge the Owners’ Community, the Comunidad de Explotación del Complejo Sun Park (CEXP), LPB and the insolvency estate.
| Plane | Possible authority | Boundary requiring another title |
|---|---|---|
| Privately owned unit | The registered owner could decide within the law, constitutive title and statutes. | That title did not expand to LPB, Matkator or third-party properties. |
| Owners’ Community | Organs and valid resolutions concerning common elements, services, budgets and common affairs. | Community minutes did not by themselves confer possession, hotel operation, disposal or universal representation. |
| CEXP | The organisational, contractual and business layer of operation under its own instruments and owner participation. | The 2011 termination concerned maintenance and did not itself decide tourism title. The 1 February 2012 CEXP–Monterecco cession exists; authority and scope remain to be proved. |
| LPB / insolvency estate | The insolvency reached LPB’s property and rights and subjected its patrimonial powers to the applicable insolvency regime. | It did not sweep in non-estate properties or any surviving rights of CEXP or third parties merely by association. |
| Court and insolvency administrator | Judicial supervision and patrimonial administration/representation of LPB within their competences. | Authority over LPB assets was not a CAM possession order or authority over all Sun Park. |
Reading framework: Articles 3, 13–15, 18 and 24 of the Horizontal Property Act separate private property, common elements, organs, voting and Community scope. Articles 38–39 of Canary Islands Law 7/1995, as amended by Law 5/1999, require a single operator and a documentary enabling title granted by the owners; operational unity does not manufacture that title.
Community book, notices and linked meetings
“Minutes” is reserved for a record attributed to a meeting. A notice does not prove that a meeting occurred; an email or court order does not become minutes; and CEXP remains separate from the Owners’ Community.
| Date and source | Actors and recorded decision | Evidential reading and limit |
|---|---|---|
| Primary minutes2 February 2011 · Owners’ Community | Asunción Aizpurúa Sánchez—administrator of owner Roque Prieto, S.L.—is elected president; Ana Jiménez Lort, secretary; Cristina Molina Petit, treasurer. Hiring an administrator and granting powers are authorised. The minutes themselves decline to decide closure/continuation of operation and the tourism licence because they fall outside the Community. | Threshold document. It contemporaneously recognises the boundary between common governance and hotel operation. FMMM is not yet named in these minutes. |
| Matrix minutes22 June 2011 · Owners’ Community | FMMM acts as administrator; Aizpurúa chairs. LPB attends with approximately 72.976% but is denied a vote for attributed debt. Those allowed to vote ratify debt, claims and lawyers, termination of CEXP maintenance, and Pamanil for maintenance/administration. | The earliest located joining of debt → voting exclusion → administrator/custody → litigation. LPB recorded objections. Later operative treatment of the resolutions did not enlarge their material scope. |
| Bilateral notice1 February 2012 · CEXP–Monterecco | A document signed and stamped by representatives of CEXP and Monterecco says Monterecco acquired title to the activity, CEXP’s activity was subrogated from that date and counterparties should transfer contracts and payments to the new operator. | Proves a purported cession and defeats any non-existence theory. No competent CEXP-body resolution or complete chain has been located establishing scope across all owners or common elements. Later tourism registration covered 159 units/477 beds. |
| Original to reconcileJuly–10 August 2012 | Notices, a contemporary 33-message chain and a file attributed to the 10 August minutes have been located. The administrator was told of the meeting and the Community-credit dispute. | The file must be checked against the diligenced book, signatures, annexes and delivery chain. A file named “ACTA 25 07 2011” is actually the 25 July 2008 record and is not counted as a 2011 meeting. |
| No meeting minutes located2013 | Notarial demands for the Community books and records exist. | They prove a custody/access dispute, not a 2013 meeting or resolution. |
| Contested notarial minutes10 April 2014 · Owners’ Community | LPB/Gil convenes a competing governance meeting with 75.991% attendance and 73.361% vote-qualified share after several attendees leave. Accounts, budget, offices and recovery actions are approved. | The notary’s public faith did not extend to the intrinsic truth of statements. Gil’s appointment was later suspended on an interim basis in P.O. 562/2014; this is not presented as finally validated authority. |
| Two separate records28 August 2014 · Community and CEXP | The LPB-controlled owners’ meeting approves tourism use, enabling instruments, a refurbishment study and claims. In a separate record, attending members appoint Gil president of CEXP. | The documentary separation matters. The CEXP minutes do not prove rescission or reversal of the 2012 cession, return of contracts/guests/revenue, or effective CEXP operation or possession. |
| Primary minutes19 November 2015 · Owners’ Community | Approximately 89.02% is recorded present/represented, but only Roque Prieto and Cristina Molina Petit—0.770%—are listed with votes. Aizpurúa chairs; FMMM administers; Antonio Cogolludo represents Cristina Molina. Total alleged debt of €3,641,456.50 is reported and a retroactive fee reduction is proposed. | Attendance and voting power are radically separated. The exact attendance hundredth must be checked against the signed original. The acknowledgement that the former fee was excessive requires reconstruction of every balance before using it to remove voting rights or certify debt. |
| Primary minutes26 April 2016 · Owners’ Community | 89.727% is present/represented and only 11.039% is listed with a vote. Aizpurúa remains president; FMMM administers; Cristina Molina is treasurer; Antonio Cogolludo represents Inversiones Salinetas. The 2010–2015 accounts are not approved because the complete records are unavailable; even so, the fee is retrospectively reduced from €171.89 to €22.26, balances are recalculated and certificates/claims authorised. Pamalexsha succeeds or replaces Pamanil while FMMM continues. | Central tension: incomplete archive and reconstructed property/voting effects at the same time. Original, audio, accounts annexes, proxies, contract and property-by-property calculations are indispensable. |
| Working meeting, not a Community meeting11 June 2016 · Las Palmas | Recorded working meeting with PwC professionals, LPB advisers, FMMM and Community counsel. It addresses operation, expenses, fees, debt, records and the amount placed in the insolvency. | It is not the audio of the 26 April meeting. Its relevance is knowledge and technical testing; the transcript must be checked against the native audio. |
| CEXP minutes7 April 2017 · CEXP | LPB, Matkator and Thompson attend through Gil and renew his CEXP presidency until April 2020. | Supports documentary organisational continuity, not by itself recovery of the ceded activity, effective operation, possession, reservations, common-area authority or rights against non-participants. |
| Primary minutes located12 June 2017 · Owners’ Community | 87.098% present/represented; only 6.545% listed with voting rights. Antonio Cogolludo Rojas is elected president, Shaila Cogolludo Ramos treasurer and FMMM secretary-administrator; Pamalexsha/FMMM continues. Budget, fees, certificates, claims and bank powers are approved. Total stated balance is €1,232,506.07; LPB is attributed €973,569.24. | Completes the named relay before 2018. A later professional email said the arrears report had not been voted as such; final minutes, audio, annexes and certificates must be reconciled. |
| Primary minutes18 May 2018 · Owners’ Community | Antonio Cogolludo chairs; FMMM is secretary-administrator; Shaila Cogolludo, treasurer. LPB 72.976% and CAM 13.034% attend, but the minutes identify only 0.385% with a vote. At the administrator’s request on LPB’s behalf, the president is authorised to hire security up to €8,500/month to control access and preserve common/private areas. | The direct documentary bridge between the administrator, Community, voting, security and access. On its face it does not transfer possession to CAM, order removal of guests/staff or authorise works in another owner’s property. |
| Minutes located; reading pending5 July 2018 · Owners’ Community | The notice concerns access incidents, supplies, common areas/pools, DP 1132/2018 and voting exclusion. A file attributed to the minutes exists but still requires manual checking against the original and audio. | A secondary transcription describes title safeguards and bars works on another owner’s property. Until the original is verified, it is not used to assert a different resolution. |
| Later recital only20 November 2018 | The 4 February 2022 minutes say that a November 2018 meeting agreed to continue studying comprehensive refurbishment and budgets. | The alleged 2018 minutes have not been isolated. The 2022 recital proves that history was invoked then, not the original content, attendees or vote. |
| No Community minutes located2019 | No 2019 meeting notice or minutes were found. The Court did, on 24 October, refuse to validate the 28 November 2018 deed separating and selling 31 LPB properties without prior judicial authority. | The order is a judicial act, not Community minutes, and is contrary evidence to a theory of complete judicial validation. Registry, restitution, fruits and credit treatment remain to be reconciled. |
| No Community minutes located2020–2021 | No meeting minutes were located. Works/investment plans, public CAM/RIC representations, insolvency warnings and the 24 February 2021 order—which left estate preservation to the administrator and refused inspection/expert evidence in that procedural setting—do exist. | Those events belong in corporate, investor and judicial lanes. They cannot be used as retrospective minutes or evidence of Community consent. |
| Primary minutes4 February 2022 · Owners’ Community | 20.993% attends: Construcciones Acos-Matos, S.L.; Proyectos Acosta Matos, S.L.; Construcciones Acosta Matos, S.A.; Greenwood; and Manuel Molina. José Daniel Acosta Matos chairs; Laura Acosta Matos represents Construcciones Acosta Matos; FMMM/Pamalexsha acts as secretary-administrator and shares bank authority. The sole CAM/JDAM project, licences, unified operation and an approximately €4.468m levy are approved; LPB is attributed €1,199,729.12 debt and €3,260,416.81 levy. | Concentrates chair, design, contractor/developer, bank, debt and the interests of the project’s potential beneficiary side. The exact project budget differs across minute/annex extractions and requires reconciliation; any realised benefit requires accounting proof. Concentration is a conflict/authority alarm, not a conviction by itself. |
| End of located recordAfter 4 February 2022 | No later primary minutes have been located. The LPB award, segregation into HNT, RIC financing, incentive and MYND operation belong to other instruments. | Absence from the reviewed record does not prove non-existence. The complete book, audio, notices, proxies, annexes and corrections through the present are requested. |
Reviewed archive references: “ACTA 02022011.pdf”, “ACTA 22062011.pdf”, “ACTA JUNTA EXTRAORDINARIA NOV-15.pdf”, “ACTA 2016 - 26 ABR.pdf”, signed April 2017 CEXP minutes, 12 June 2017 Owners’ Community minutes, “17. ACTA 2018 - 18 MAY.pdf”, and “ACTA 2022 - 4FEB…”. These are located copies; comparison with the diligenced book and publication of certified, appropriately redacted reproductions remain pending.
Named and functional continuity
Continuity may be relevant when assessing an innocent-confusion explanation, but only for facts each person is proved to have known; it does not replace individual proof of instruction, benefit and intent.
| Actor | Recorded function | Closing records required |
|---|---|---|
| Francisco Mario Matos Matas—FMMMAdministrator / secretary-administrator | Administrator by June 2011; reads debt and voting lists; custody/document production through 2015–2018; continuity through Pamanil/Pamalexsha; secretary-administrator and bank authority in 2022. | Appointments, contracts, remuneration, archives, accounts, certificates, instructions, banking, security, Pamanil→Pamalexsha relationship and third-party services. |
| Asunción Aizpurúa / Cristina Molina PetitInitial presidency and treasury | The phase starts in 2011; Cristina is represented by Antonio Cogolludo in later meetings. The presidency terminates CEXP maintenance and advances the first claims. | Powers, title, instructions, books, payments, decisions taken while LPB could not vote, and communications with the administrator, lawyers and insolvency administrator. |
| Antonio Cogolludo RojasRepresentative; president 2017–2018 | Represents property interests in earlier minutes; elected president in June 2017; chairs the May 2018 security authority and the July notice. | Current title and power, security contract/instructions, access, payments, communications and property-by-property scope. |
| Shaila Cogolludo RamosTreasurer; linked administrative work | Recorded in 2017–2018 as an owner/representative with voting rights and treasurer; preserved statements link her employment to Pamalexsha. | Title, powers, employment, accounting/bank functions, voting, certificates and access. |
| José Daniel Acosta Matos—JDAMChair, architect and 2022 project | Chairs the 4 February 2022 meeting and appears as author of the project presented and approved by entities in the Acosta Matos perimeter. | Title at notice/vote date, conflict and abstention, retainer/fees, permits, affected units, finance and benefit. |
| Laura Acosta MatosCAM representative | Represents Construcciones Acosta Matos in the relevant minutes; appears in the June 2018 physical-control record and at the 2022 meeting. | Power, instructions, units, relationship with security/contractors, communications and actual scope of intervention. |
| Pamanil / PamalexshaMaintenance, administration and custody | Pamanil is ratified in 2011; in 2016 the structure shifts to Pamalexsha while FMMM continues; Pamalexsha remains through the 2022 convergence. | Contractual/corporate succession, staff, invoices, banking, tax, books and beneficial owners. |
| LPB insolvency administratorPatrimonial representative of LPB | Received notice of the threat to hotel operation in 2015 and the authority/debt controversy in 2016; analysed a package in July 2016; requested the 2018 security meeting and acknowledged access authority. | Complete receipt/analysis file, credit calculation, instructions, voting checks, inventory, preservation and communications to the Court. |
Name precision: the minutes use Antonio Cogolludo Rojas and Shaila Cogolludo Ramos. Family or personal relationships described in party emails are not used here as a substitute for civil or corporate proof. Acosta Matos company names vary between the minutes and annexes and should remain as recorded in each instrument.
Actual knowledge of the insolvency administrator
The evidence supports receipt and discussion of the allegation’s core. It does not automatically turn notice into acceptance of its legal correctness or criminal intent.
Three lanes that must not be collapsed
A unitary theory still requires individual attribution. The administrator administered or represented LPB’s estate; the judge supervised the insolvency. Neither thereby becomes a participant in every private act—or falls outside scrutiny of their own acts and omissions.
The administrator received the dispute in 2016. In 2018 he acted for LPB to request security and later testified that he authorised access to LPB premises for maintenance, accepting lock-breaking when required within that mandate. The question is whether he verified the voting basis, identified each unit and prevented that authority becoming broader hotel control.
The Provincial Court affirmed dismissal, treated the dispute as predominantly civil and relied on the administrator’s account/authority. It treated Pink’s formal possession as delivered on 22 May 2017 and was adverse to the criminally protectable possession asserted by CEXP. Its conditional wording that Pink “would already have abandoned” compressed an email whose original distinguishes the end of new commercialisation from services, supplies, maintenance, preservation and transition. The Order contains 2017/2018 and 2012/2013 inconsistencies. It did not adjudicate civil/tourism title or give CAM all Sun Park, but neither did it recognise CEXP as operator in 2018.
The Court described its 26 June 2018 pronouncements as erroneous, recorded the absence of prior judicial authority and refused to validate the separation/sale of 31 LPB properties. This is contrary evidence to a theory of uniform judicial cooperation and requires following the operation through Registry, restitution and accounts.
The order recorded the positions on works and units, rejected inspection/expert evidence in that procedural setting and left estate preservation to the administrator, noting a potential liability route. It proves knowledge and a reasoned decision; it does not prove clandestine agreement or criminal intent.
Production-and-propagation theory
Every arrow requires an author, record, date, knowledge, competence, effect and benefit.
Functional law: during the relevant period the 2003 Insolvency Act governed diligence, supervision, liability, removal, patrimonial powers, preservation and continuation in Articles 35–37, 40, 43–44 and 54. From September 2020 the Consolidated Insolvency Act maintains duties of diligence, independence, supervision, liability and removal. Those provisions define duties and competence; they do not themselves prove agreement or intent.
Gil Marer’s public characterisation · not a conviction
The minutes are advanced as a unitary patrimonial theory of possible criminal-law significance, pending judicial determination. A disputed meeting, contested debt or adverse outcome is not automatically a crime.
| Candidate offence under examination | Facts supporting investigation | Proof still required |
|---|---|---|
| Fraud / procedural fraudArticles 248 and 250.1.7 | Alleged use of incomplete/false debt, voting, minutes, certificates, authority or title to produce patrimonial or judicial decisions. | Exact false/concealed fact; author and knowledge; deceived recipient; error; causal disposition/order; loss and benefit. If the judge was deceived, the same inference cannot simultaneously call the judge a knowing participant without independent proof. |
| Disposition under non-existent authorityArticle 251.1 | Specific acts presenting as available an asset, use or right belonging to LPB, CEXP, Matkator or another owner. | Exact asset/right, disposition, asserted authority, known absence of power, acquirer, consideration and damage. |
| Disloyal administrationArticle 252 from July 2015 | Possible knowing excess by persons administering Community or estate property, causing measurable loss and another’s advantage. | Administered property, source/limit of power, intentional excess, act/omission, causal loss and benefit. Earlier acts are governed by the historical offence, not automatic retroactive application of Article 252. |
| Document offences and knowing useArticles 390, 392–396 | A specific minute, proxy, attendance, vote, debt, certificate or intervention alleged to be altered, simulated or falsely attributed, and its later circulation. | Individual record; public/mercantile/private nature; statutory alteration; author; intent and knowing use. An invalid, partial or legally mistaken resolution is not thereby criminal falsification. |
| Coercion / arbitrary self-helpArticles 172 and 455 | Chains, locks, security and exclusion on 7 June 2018 if authority was exceeded and people or property outside the mandate were affected. | Order and actor; victim; exact space/unit; force or intimidation; right actually held; excess; intent and damage. AP 804/2018 and the administrator’s authority are adverse evidence that must be confronted. |
| Insolvency offencesArticles 257 and 259–261, as dated | Unjustified deterioration or disposition of estate/business value, undervalue sale, fictitious credit, materially false accounts or acts aimed at defeating creditors, if proved. | Numbered statutory conduct, required subject, insolvency, date, value, economic justification, causation and intent/gross negligence. Article 261 is narrow and does not cover every later statement inside an insolvency. |
| Participation or commission by omissionArticles 11, 28 and 29 | Affirmative contribution or failure to act by a person with a specific duty and real ability to prevent the result. | Principal offence, guarantor position, knowledge, intentional contribution, ability to prevent, causal equivalence and result. Notice, proximity or passivity alone is insufficient. |
| Judicial conductArticles 446–449 | Must be examined order by order only where knowing injustice, gross/inexcusable negligence, refusal or malicious delay is alleged. | A text outside every reasonable legal interpretation, competence, subjective knowledge and causation. Error, insufficient supervision or a reversed order does not alone equal judicial misconduct. |
Legal text: Spanish Criminal Code, current and historical versions. The date of each act determines the applicable offence and limitation period; a global label of “insolvency fraud” is no substitute for that analysis.
Later professional review · 2026
Their existence proves registration and preliminary procedural activity—not the truth of the complaint, invalidity of resolutions, crime or a professional-breach finding.
Evidence that can confirm, correct or refute
The publication is open to documentary contradiction. A verifiable response will receive the same visual prominence as the allegation.
| Package | Minimum contents | Question resolved |
|---|---|---|
| Minutes book 2011–2022 | Diligenced original, notices, audio, attendees, titles, proxies, annexes, signatures, corrections and service. | What was decided, who could vote and which text circulated. |
| Debt and accounts | Budgets, invoices, statements, allocation, payments, duplication, challenges, deposits and property-by-property certificates. | Whether the debt removing voting rights and conditioning the insolvency existed and was correctly calculated. |
| Pamanil/Pamalexsha and offices | Contracts, appointments, billing, payroll, banks, custody, succession and beneficial owners. | Who produced, kept and used the records; who was paid. |
| Security and access 2018 | Contract, instructions, invoices, rota, reports, keys, locksmith, properties and administrator–Community–CAM communications. | Whether an LPB preservation mandate was exceeded and by whom. |
| Insolvency 36/2012 | Certified docket, receipt of warnings, administrator reports, inventory, authorities, orders, appeals, deed, Registry and final accounts. | What actually entered the estate, what each decision-maker knew and what effect followed. |
| 2022 project and benefit | Minutes/audio/annexes, title at date, permits, retainer, budgets, levy, payments, RIC, incentives, income and related-party dealings. | Who bore cost, who received works/value and under what authority. |
| ICALPA 79/80 | Complete official College file and determination. | Actual status, adversarial record and any real professional decision. |