The Third Chamber of the Supreme Court confirmed that a real estate company will have to pay restitution of $ 2,000,000 (two million pesos) to the owner of a home a few months of being acquired, had serious structural damage defects in construction. In
unanimous decision (due role in 2096-2010), ministers Héctor Carreño, Pedro Pierry, Sonia Araneda and Harold Brown, also a member Benito Mauriz attorney, rejected the appeal presented by the San Francisco Real Estate SA against the decision of the Santiago Court of Appeals (case role 5019-2007) in favor of Katherine Abumohor Sifri.
The woman purchased in December 2005, an apartment on Calle San Francisco 350. Property that, in May 2006, began recording flooding and problems with the winter rains, which were attributed to two holes left by the supports of a sign or banner advertising from the manufacturer.
The ruling determined that the Santiago Appeals Court ruled correctly in determining the liability of the estate for damages in the department of the applicant. "The award of second degree established that the damage occurred on the premises of the applicant to submit water leakage defects in the structure of the slab of the sky, which came after staff withdrew a billboard construction installed on the roof of the building causing moisture and mold on the walls, carpet and especially in the bedroom of the house. He adds that the damage suffered by the plaintiff is the pain of not being able to occupy their new apartment and can not live normalmente debido a los daños y los regula prudencialmente en la suma de dos millones de pesos”, dice el fallo.
Y agrega que “descartada la infracción a las leyes reguladoras de la prueba, aparece que el recurso se construye contrariando los hechos establecidos en la sentencia cuestionada para de esa manera intentar obtener una decisión distinta a la recurrida, especialmente en cuanto se aparta de la circunstancia de que los daños se produjeron por defectos en la estructura del cielo y que la actora sufrió daño moral resultante del dolor de no poder ocupar su departamento nuevo y que no pudo habitar normalmente debido a los daños. Dicha finalidad, sin respetar tales hechos, sólo puede llevar the rejection of the appeal, because the analysis of the violation of legal norms, articles 2314 and 2329 Civil Code and 18 of the General Law of Urban Planning and Construction, could only take place in the light of facts different from those set out in sentence attacked, which have been established by sovereign judges are irremovable merit to this Supreme Court. "
0 comments:
Post a Comment