SPOTLIGHT · TEST CASE · FLAGSHIP CASE
An eviction-for-precario proceeding elevated by Por Derecho as a test case: not to prejudge fraud, but because it lets a reviewer trace the same dispute from units and hotel operation through procedural identity, judicial decision and possible later institutional reuse.
SUN PARK · JV 1260/2011 → AP 89/2014 → ACTÚA
Follow the documented 18-unit dispute, the alleged withdrawal of two blocks and the proposed chain from physical deterioration to hotel-wide harm and valuation misuse.
Gil Marer alleges a fraudulent use of proceedings and deliberate economic harm by the Montelanza/Molina dissident perimeter, followed by later instrumentalisation in the Acosta Matos perimeter. This visual tests that allegation against documents, contrary findings and missing links; it does not declare a criminal finding.
220 accommodation units · 262 hotel fincas
The nine blocks contain 220 accommodation units. Forty service/commercial fincas and two pool/solarium fincas complete the 262-title hotel perimeter. Title brings automatic CP membership; CP entrusts exploitation to the operator. CEXP remains separate.
The approved illustration explains orientation and design. It is not a survey, a 2012 photograph or evidence of condition or occupancy on any historical date.
18 claimed units: 11 + 4 + 3
The original schedule identifies 11 units in Block 4, four in Block 5 and three in Block 9. The claimants added Monterecco Sun Park, S.L. on 23 February 2012. That Spanish company was later renamed Pink Canary Services; it was not a new defendant under that later name in 2012.
The claim expressly described Sun Park as a hotel. Alleged deception must be tested against possession, consent, obligations and the documentary account—not inferred from a supposed omission of the word hotel.
16 deliveries · 15 recorded lock changes
On 28 May 2012, the notarial record lists 16 key deliveries and 15 openings/lock changes. Keys for 907 and 908 were not delivered. First instance had absolved Monterecco; the appeal court later inferred possession and lifted the corporate veil, extending eviction to it.
The project disputes equating maintenance-key custody with operation of the claimant units. Preserve the contrary judicial holding. Alias 458 is on the delivery list but absent from the lock-change list; neither list establishes closure of all 44 units.
44 design units · 20% of accommodation capacity
Gil Marer alleges that the dissident perimeter withdrew Blocks 4 and 5 from hotel operation and deliberately neglected them. The hatch identifies the two blocks implicated in that allegation. Their design capacity is 44 units—20% of the hotel's 220 accommodation units.
Hatching is not proof that all 44 were closed on one date or under one controller. The 2012 notarial photographs already record conditions in 504, 503, 407 and 405. Date, unit, access, maintenance duty, pre-existing condition and subsequent deterioration must be established separately.
Access · maintenance · costs · guests · value
The alleged effects extend beyond the closed rooms: interrupted access and maintenance, shared service and safety obligations, common costs spread over fewer trading units, guest perception and effects on income and financing. The arrows show the proposed pathways through the connected hotel.
These are qualitative causal pathways to investigate, not measured damage or an automatic legal finding for every unit. Identify the applicable duty and breach, actual exposure, dates and loss. The 20% capacity share is not a 20% revenue or valuation loss.
44 design units ≠ ACTÚA's reported 61
The project alleges that conditions produced or prolonged within the dissident perimeter were then used to depreciate the whole hotel through ACTÚA. Test each photograph, inspected unit and supplied statement against the other seven blocks, the service fincas and the operating hotel—not only against another headline valuation.
ACTÚA's reported 'at least 61' uninhabitable units lacks a recovered alias schedule. Its photographs are not all geolocated to Blocks 4 and 5. The 44-unit design count, GESVALT condition descriptions and ACTÚA's 61 must not be equated. Knowing manipulation, judicial reliance and causation require actor-specific proof.
Apply these cumulative layers to the unit, act and date. Possessory relief does not, by itself, change planning use, the tourism licence or continuing title and community obligations.
Solid outline: documented claim scope. Hatch: blocks in the later closure allegation. Dashed arrows: causal hypothesis. Unshaded blocks have no condition classification in this visual.
The PDFs below preserve the recovered original bytes. Both are in Spanish; the English text is an explanatory summary. Select a judgment to read it here, or open its dedicated reader. The later appeal reversed part of the first-instance outcome.
CEXP: eviction following its qualified submission, with costs. Monterecco Sun Park SL: absolved because possession or exploitation of the claimant units was not proved, even indicatively.
Read all four pages; reasoning and operative disposition on physical pages 2–4.
Open dedicated PDF reader · Open or download original PDF · 4 pages
If your browser does not display the PDF, use the original-PDF link. Judgment date, notification date and proof of finality are separate.
SP-EV-S03 · SHA-256 8c9212342380424099854e2a10861c3e09ddc6fb2c8d013539568ff2dbc731f0
Section 4, appeal roll 793/2012: reversed Monterecco’s absolution and extended eviction to both defendants, relying on key custody, corporate links and veil lifting. First-instance costs against both; no appeal costs. This is the adverse holding challenged by the project.
Read all seven pages; appellate reasoning on physical pages 3–6 and the disposition on page 7. The court treated the case as plenary possessory proceedings, with res judicata.
Open dedicated PDF reader · Open or download original PDF · 7 pages
If your browser does not display the PDF, use the original-PDF link. Judgment date, notification date and proof of finality are separate.
SP-EV-S06 · SHA-256 1bce9ad6111645393ee2f23915b7df05a9a879181f2c19fad83f6b3e8989c1ec
7 May 2012: Monterecco absolved for insufficient proof. 13 January 2014: AP Section 4 reversed that result and extended eviction using key custody and corporate links. The maintenance-key explanation remains the project's contrary position. The judgment concerns claimant units; it does not itself establish control over the entire hotel or authorise the separate 2018 takeover.
The notarial record and appeal judgment identify Marer Yehuda acting in Luchy Playa Blanca's name. The preserved 2026 Gil account says Gil acted as CEXP president. Both are retained as an unresolved person-and-capacity conflict; the visual follows the primary record for its event attribution.
| Door alias | Registry finca / DH | Documented scope |
|---|---|---|
| 701 | 8563 / 27 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 702 | 8562 / 26 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 703 | 8561 / 25 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 704 | 8560 / 24 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 705 | 8559 / 23 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 706 | 8558 / 22 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 707 | 8557 / 21 | Outside the 18-unit claim · SOURCE CONFLICT |
| 708 | 8556 / 20 | Outside the 18-unit claim · SOURCE CONFLICT |
| 709 | 8555 / 19 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 710 | 8554 / 18 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 711 | 8553 / 17 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 712 | 8552 / 16 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 713 | 8551 / 15 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 714 | 8550 / 14 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 715 | 8549 / 13 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 716 | 8548 / 12 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 751 | 8682 / 144 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 752 | 8681 / 143 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 753 | 8680 / 142 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 754 | 8679 / 141 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 755 | 8678 / 140 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 756 | 8677 / 139 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 757 | 8676 / 138 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 758 | 8675 / 137 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 759 | 8674 / 136 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 760 | 8673 / 135 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 761 | 8672 / 134 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 762 | 8671 / 133 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 763 | 8670 / 132 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 764 | 8669 / 131 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 765 | 8668 / 130 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 766 | 8667 / 129 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| Door alias | Registry finca / DH | Documented scope |
|---|---|---|
| 601 | 8579 / 43 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 602 | 8578 / 42 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 603 | 8577 / 41 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 604 | 8576 / 40 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 605 | 8575 / 39 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 606 | 8574 / 38 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 607 | 8573 / 37 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 608 | 8572 / 36 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 609 | 8571 / 35 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 610 | 8570 / 34 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 611 | 8569 / 33 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 612 | 8568 / 32 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 613 | 8567 / 31 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 614 | 8566 / 30 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 615 | 8565 / 29 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 616 | 8564 / 28 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 651 | 8698 / 160 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 652 | 8697 / 159 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 653 | 8696 / 158 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 654 | 8695 / 157 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 655 | 8694 / 156 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 656 | 8693 / 155 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 657 | 8692 / 154 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 658 | 8691 / 153 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 659 | 8690 / 152 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 660 | 8689 / 151 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 661 | 8688 / 150 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 662 | 8687 / 149 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 663 | 8686 / 148 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 664 | 8685 / 147 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 665 | 8684 / 146 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 666 | 8683 / 145 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| Door alias | Registry finca / DH | Documented scope |
|---|---|---|
| 801 | 8547 / 11 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 802 | 8546 / 10 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 803 | 8545 / 9 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 804 | 8544 / 8 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 805 | 8543 / 7 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 806 | 8542 / 6 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 807 | 8541 / 5 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 808 | 8540 / 4 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 809 | 8539 / 3 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 810 | 8538 / 2 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 811 | 8537 / 1 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 851 | 8666 / 128 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 852 | 8665 / 127 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 853 | 8664 / 126 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 854 | 8663 / 125 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 855 | 8662 / 124 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 856 | 8661 / 123 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 857 | 8660 / 122 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 858 | 8659 / 121 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 859 | 8658 / 120 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 860 | 8657 / 119 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 861 | 8656 / 118 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 862 | 8655 / 117 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| Door alias | Registry finca / DH | Documented scope |
|---|---|---|
| 901 | 8593 / 57 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 902 | 8592 / 56 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 903 | 8591 / 55 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 904 | 8590 / 54 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 905 | 8589 / 53 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 906 | 8588 / 52 | Outside the 18-unit claim · SOURCE CONFLICT |
| 907 | 8587 / 51 | 2011 claim |
| 908 | 8586 / 50 | 2011 claim |
| 909 | 8585 / 49 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 910 | 8584 / 48 | Outside the 18-unit claim · SOURCE CONFLICT |
| 911 | 8583 / 47 | 2011 claim · Key delivered · Lock changed |
| 912 | 8582 / 46 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 913 | 8581 / 45 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 914 | 8580 / 44 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| Door alias | Registry finca / DH | Documented scope |
|---|---|---|
| 102 | 8652 / 116 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 103 | 8651 / 115 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 104 | 8650 / 114 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 105 | 8649 / 113 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 106 | 8648 / 112 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 107 | 8647 / 111 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 108 | 8646 / 110 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 109 | 8645 / 109 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 110 | 8644 / 108 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 111 | 8643 / 107 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 112 | 8642 / 106 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 113 | 8641 / 105 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 114 | 8640 / 104 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 151 | 8758 / 220 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 152 | 8757 / 219 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 153 | 8756 / 218 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 154 | 8755 / 217 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 155 | 8754 / 216 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 156 | 8753 / 215 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 157 | 8752 / 214 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 158 | 8751 / 213 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 159 | 8750 / 212 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 160 | 8749 / 211 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 161 | 8748 / 210 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 162 | 8747 / 209 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 163 | 8746 / 208 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 164 | 8745 / 207 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| Door alias | Registry finca / DH | Documented scope |
|---|---|---|
| 501 | 8607 / 71 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 502 | 8606 / 70 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 503 | 8605 / 69 | 2011 claim · Key delivered · Lock changed · 2012 photo |
| 504 | 8604 / 68 | 2011 claim · Key delivered · Lock changed · 2012 photo |
| 505 | 8603 / 67 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 506 | 8602 / 66 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 507 | 8601 / 65 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 508 | 8600 / 64 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 509 | 8599 / 63 | 2011 claim · Key delivered · Lock changed |
| 510 | 8598 / 62 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 511 | 8597 / 61 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 512 | 8596 / 60 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 513 | 8595 / 59 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 514 | 8594 / 58 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 551 | 8712 / 174 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 552 | 8711 / 173 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 553 | 8710 / 172 | 2011 claim · Key delivered · Lock changed |
| 554 | 8709 / 171 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 555 | 8708 / 170 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 556 | 8707 / 169 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 557 | 8706 / 168 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 558 | 8705 / 167 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 559 | 8704 / 166 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 560 | 8703 / 165 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 561 | 8702 / 164 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 562 | 8701 / 163 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 563 | 8700 / 162 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 564 | 8699 / 161 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| Door alias | Registry finca / DH | Documented scope |
|---|---|---|
| 201 | 8639 / 103 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 202 | 8638 / 102 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 203 | 8637 / 101 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 204 | 8636 / 100 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 205 | 8635 / 99 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 206 | 8634 / 98 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 207 | 8633 / 97 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 208 | 8632 / 96 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 209 | 8631 / 95 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 210 | 8630 / 94 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 251 | 8744 / 206 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 252 | 8743 / 205 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 253 | 8742 / 204 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 254 | 8741 / 203 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 255 | 8740 / 202 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 256 | 8739 / 201 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 257 | 8738 / 200 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 258 | 8737 / 199 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 259 | 8736 / 198 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 260 | 8735 / 197 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| Door alias | Registry finca / DH | Documented scope |
|---|---|---|
| 401 | 8615 / 79 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 402 | 8614 / 78 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 403 | 8613 / 77 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 404 | 8612 / 76 | 2011 claim · Key delivered · Lock changed |
| 405 | 8611 / 75 | 2011 claim · Key delivered · Lock changed · 2012 photo |
| 406 | 8610 / 74 | 2011 claim · Key delivered · Lock changed |
| 407 | 8609 / 73 | 2011 claim · Key delivered · Lock changed · 2012 photo |
| 408 | 8608 / 72 | 2011 claim · Key delivered · Lock changed |
| 451 | 8720 / 182 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 452 | 8719 / 181 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 453 | 8718 / 180 | 2011 claim · Key delivered · Lock changed |
| 454 | 8717 / 179 | 2011 claim · Key delivered · Lock changed |
| 455 | 8716 / 178 | 2011 claim · Key delivered · Lock changed |
| 456 | 8715 / 177 | 2011 claim · Key delivered · Lock changed |
| 457 | 8714 / 176 | 2011 claim · Key delivered · Lock changed |
| 458 | 8713 / 175 | 2011 claim · Key delivered |
| Door alias | Registry finca / DH | Documented scope |
|---|---|---|
| 301 | 8629 / 93 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 302 | 8628 / 92 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 303 | 8627 / 91 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 304 | 8626 / 90 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 305 | 8625 / 89 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 306 | 8624 / 88 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 307 | 8623 / 87 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 308 | 8622 / 86 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 309 | 8621 / 85 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 310 | 8620 / 84 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 311 | 8619 / 83 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 312 | 8618 / 82 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 313 | 8617 / 81 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 314 | 8616 / 80 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 351 | 8734 / 196 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 352 | 8733 / 195 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 353 | 8732 / 194 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 354 | 8731 / 193 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 355 | 8730 / 192 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 356 | 8729 / 191 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 357 | 8728 / 190 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 358 | 8727 / 189 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 359 | 8726 / 188 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 360 | 8725 / 187 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 361 | 8724 / 186 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 362 | 8723 / 185 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 363 | 8722 / 184 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
| 364 | 8721 / 183 | Outside the 18-unit claim |
Door → finca → horizontal-division number comes from the existing 2022 GESVALT working schedule, not a newly certified 2011 Registry crosswalk. Known source conflicts remain open; current ownership is not inferred from this table.
If a controller caused or prolonged deterioration, knew its origin and then knowingly supplied or used it as a misleading hotel-wide valuation premise, the valuation may become evidence about that conduct. Every link below needs its own source. Neither a lower valuation nor sequence alone proves the allegation.
ACTÚA: author, instructions, inspection and method. Claimant/predecessor perimeter: unit, control, duty and alleged omission. Acosta Matos: exact report and use date. AC: material received, challenge and decision. Judge: filing, reasons and material reliance. Shared interests do not establish a common criminal agreement.
The 9 March 2018 GESVALT annex filing is evidenced; filing is not proof of personal judicial reading. A 17 April filing cannot inform a 16 April order. The 2008 Multimetrics sale-breach and later title-transfer chain still needs unit- and actor-specific proof. Repair cost, lost income and capital loss must not be counted twice.
The project alleges an upstream distortion of the case and repeated downstream adverse instrumentalisation. Each row below is a separate proposition to test. A judgment proves what the court decided; its later citation or adoption needs its own document and date. Describing the AC or judge as adverse actors states the project’s position and does not establish misconduct.
| Role / period | Evidence and adverse finding | Alleged use and required link |
|---|---|---|
| 2008 agreement → 2011 claim → 2012 joinder | The claim identifies 18 aliases in Blocks 4, 5 and 9 and expressly describes a hotel. Monterecco was added on 23 February 2012; its later Pink Canary name is the same Spanish entity, not proof of an operating role. | Alleged breach of the Multimetrics sale and misleading operator attribution: recover each claimant’s accession, title and control, the agreement, joinder basis and actual activity. A hotel description in the claim is contrary to saying the courts were never told it was a hotel. |
| Possession and key custody → judicial eviction | First instance absolved Monterecco for insufficient proof. The AP inferred possession through keys and corporate links and reversed that result. Maintenance access and actual exploitation are different propositions. | Alleged conversion of shared hotel maintenance arrangements into proof of possession: test the original submission, hearing, opposition, admissibility of later evidence and the precise reasoning. The appeal’s adverse finding cannot be omitted. |
| 2012 keys → later physical control and condition | The notarial carrier records 16 deliveries and 15 opened/lock-changed units. Its photographs already record defects in 2012. The later two-block closure allegation covers a 44-unit design capacity, a different denominator. | Alleged exclusion and deliberate neglect: establish dated unit-level control, enforceable duties, access refusals, condition before and after, works and competing causes. Neither all 44 closures nor all later deterioration follows from the judgment. |
| 2018 ACTÚA preparation → whole-hotel inference | The ACTÚA reference to at least 61 units, the approximately 44 GESVALT condition observation and the 44 design units are distinct. ACTÚA’s photographs are not all located, and the condition record is mixed. | Alleged generalisation from dissident-controlled blocks: identify the inspected units, dated images, instructions, sample selection, methodological treatment and effect on value. Compare the GESVALT evidence and contrary observations before inferring a knowingly false whole-hotel representation. |
| CAM use → AC treatment → judicial reliance | A report’s filing, receipt, citation and material adoption are separate events. The 9 March 2018 filing of two GESVALT annexes is established; it does not alone prove personal judicial reading. A 17 April filing cannot inform a 16 April order. | Alleged continued adverse use of the judgments and ACTÚA: identify the exact CAM submission, AC report and paragraph, judicial order and reasons, notice of contrary material and practical effect. Connect predecessor-to-CAM title and conduct without attributing the 2011 act automatically to a later acquirer. |
| Later title / takeover narratives → hotel-wide harm | AP Section 4 judgment 89/2014 is distinct from the 2018 criminal-track Section 2 order 804/2018. Possessory relief over claimant units does not itself authorise the 7 June 2018 material-control event or dispose of all 262 titles. | Alleged reuse as broader entitlement: quote each later invocation and the right asserted, compare the operative scope, and establish access, maintenance, trading, guest/reputation and common-cost consequences. Arrows show possible transmission of harm, not measured losses or automatic collective liability. |
Predecessor ownership, a later transfer or aligned interests do not establish that every Montelanza/Molina owner, CAM company, ACTÚA author, administrator or judge shared knowledge, duties or intent. Map the unit, entity, document, date and act separately.
Still open: original administrator correlation annex; full 2012 hearing, qualified submission and 11 July opposition; evidence-admission and finality/execution records; dated unit-by-unit control and condition history; ACTÚA's 61-unit list, inspection notes and photo locations; actor-specific knowledge and causal loss.
Page numbers below are physical pages of the recovered carriers. Hashes identify recovered bytes; they do not certify signatures, finality, completeness of the court file or a criminal conclusion.
Original claim: 18 aliases; Sun Park expressly called a hotel; administrator correlation annex referenced, still missing.
SHA-256 407a38eb93de7bf0be44ebf4b747df2f7cf0a4ab6f49296eb7d9b42fb51d340d
Claimant extension against Monterecco Sun Park, S.L. (TS-02 / CF09).
SHA-256 5d6fd2b1c4ea67b82a53fc04e217840dc1f88bca294035757bee722a5e85b45f
JPI 4 Arrecife, judgment 122/2012: CEXP eviction following its submission; Monterecco absolved for insufficient possession/operation proof.
SHA-256 8c9212342380424099854e2a10861c3e09ddc6fb2c8d013539568ff2dbc731f0
Appeal and annex carrier: appeal pp. 1–11; notarial act 541/2012 pp. 13–21; photographs pp. 22–29. Event 28 May; incorporation 11 June. Carrier is not the complete court file.
SHA-256 61bfaea82a0584abc98c3656135d8d77eeb18016bda079def8e20c1f7e9722c5
Appeal admitted with ten-day opposition period; notification stamp 27 June 2012.
SHA-256 f29a0e1a77d52241b54c3ee6371eec8719a24b8a0d9da0b2d324cc4d55e0434e
AP Las Palmas, Section 4, roll 793/2012, judgment 89/2014: adverse appellate holding extends eviction to Monterecco, using key custody and corporate relationships; first-instance costs against both defendants, no appeal costs.
SHA-256 1bce9ad6111645393ee2f23915b7df05a9a879181f2c19fad83f6b3e8989c1ec
LexNET notification cover. Notification date differs from judgment date. Neither this cover nor the recovered bundle proves finality or validates a digital signature.
SHA-256 5be54ec89ebd9e5d1be381d4ba5d6b8e9c21523e74e412dc6903fd307e8c75e9
This file forces the reader to separate registered title, hotel participation, possession, CEXP, Monterecco, claimant initiative, the true scope of the judgments and what third parties may later have done with that judicial result.
TEST CASE
The institutional question is which facts entered the court, how Monterecco entered litigation already underway, what each judicial level actually decided, and which propositions may later have been reused.
The file is identified as eviction-for-precario verbal proceedings 1260/2011 before JPI no. 4 Arrecife. The appeal proceeded as Roll 793/2012 and culminated in Judgment 89/2014 dated 13 January 2014.
The 23 February 2012 pleading records that, after learning of a change in exploitation, the claimant side expanded the action against Monterecco Sun Park, S.L. The exact legal character of that step must be fixed from the complete pleading and the court order that handled it.
The current extraction identifies an 18-unit claimant-side perimeter. The reconstruction task is to map each property, owner, 2008 obligation, participation or withdrawal from hotel exploitation, and litigation position.
The current extraction of the appeal judgment records an 88.96% LPB presence/participation in the Comunidad de Explotación. That does not equate to rights over the 18 units or a valid property-community majority at any later date.
TWO DECISIONS · ONE FILE
Por Derecho does not use the appeal judgment as a substitute for the first-instance record. The reconstruction must show which allegation, evidence and issue reached each court.
Formal object: eviction for precario.
Reconstruction question: what basis of possession/hotel exploitation was attributed to CEXP and later Monterecco, and what facts about the hotel model and the claimant units were actually placed before the court?
Date: 13 January 2014.
Reconstruction question: what did the appellate court confirm, correct or reject, and what remained outside its decision? A judgment may validly resolve a possessory issue without resolving the entire ownership, Community-governance or debt architecture.
FORENSIC CORE
The site does not state that CEXP corporately “became” Monterecco. It investigates the procedural bridge constructed by the claimants and exactly what the court accepted.
SCOPE DISCIPLINE
This page will track any later “over-reading” of the result: recital, ratio, dispositive order and institutional reuse must remain separate.
| Proposition | Current status | What it does not automatically prove |
|---|---|---|
| Existence of JV 1260/2011 and appeal 793/2012 | Verified | Does not prove fraud or Community authority. |
| 23-FEB-2012 extension against Monterecco | Verified with limitation | Does not prove CEXP and Monterecco were the same legal person or that every right/liability automatically transferred. |
| 18-unit perimeter | Verified with context | Does not make that perimeter a hotel majority or confer authority over the remainder. |
| 88.96% LPB/CEXP figure in the current appeal extraction | Verified with context | Does not authorise exploitation or retention of third-party units without legal basis and does not decide later property-community majorities. |
| Fraudulent contrivance / procedural fraud / procedural fraud offence hypothesis | Investigative hypothesis | No criminal conclusion follows merely because the litigation was adverse or the extension was claimant-driven. |
PARALLEL COMMAND
No civil irregularity automatically becomes a crime; no procedural formality by itself closes a separate criminal question if evidence independently establishes representation, knowledge, use and consequence.
Registered title · consent · exploitation · standing · basis of possession · effect of the February-2012 cession · admission of Monterecco · scope of each judgment.
Act or representation → documentary reality → knowledge → material omission/manipulation if any → judicial understanding → decision → benefit/harm → causation → alternative innocent explanation.
FIRST REVIEW PACK
The source binaries are under custody control; direct public publication is decided document by document. The page's value is to show which piece is missing and which conclusion it could change.
| Source | Status | Question it resolves |
|---|---|---|
| 23-DEC-2011 claim · JV 1260/2011 | Located | Initial version of facts, units, possession and defendants. |
| 23-FEB-2012 extension against Monterecco | Located | Origin of the claimant-driven procedural continuity/equation. |
| Order admitting/handling the extension | Priority | Exact legal mechanism used by the court. |
| Defence + hearing + evidence | Priority | What contradiction and what documents the judge actually had. |
| First-instance judgment | Located · granularisation pending | Facts and reasoning supporting the result. |
| AP Judgment 89/2014 | Located | What the appellate court confirmed, rejected or reformulated. |
| 18 units · Registry + 2008 | Keystone | Who held title and which obligations/participation existed before litigation. |
| 2011 ACTA + vote + coefficients + debt | Keystone | Whether there is a real link to the alleged Community-authority rupture. |
| Later uses of the judgment | Open | Whether there was repetition, independent revalidation or institutional over-reading. |
FROM CASE FILE TO KNOWLEDGE
The repository holds the evidence. The books explain the wider problem: fragmentation, reuse of decisions and how legal technology can reconstruct a traceable factual system without replacing judges, prosecutors or auditors.
PROVISIONAL CONCLUSION
If the file establishes ordinary litigation and a properly founded extension, that conclusion will be preserved. If it establishes a misleading procedural equivalence, a material omission or later use broader than what was decided, each link and actor will be traced separately.