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 a 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 Court of Appeals of Santiago (5019-2007 role cause) 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 company construction.
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 take his department again and can not live normally because of the damage and the prudential regulator in the sum of two million pesos, "the ruling said.
He adds that "eliminated the breach of the laws governing the testing, it appears that the application is built contrary to the facts established in the challenged decision to thereby attempt to obtain a different decision on the appeal, particularly as they away from the fact that injuries were caused by defects in the structure of heaven and that the plaintiff suffered pecuniary damage resulting from the pain of not being able to occupy their new apartment and could not live normally because of damage. That purpose, such disregard facts can only lead to 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 light of various facts those specified in the sentence attacked, which have been sovereignly established by the judges of merit are entrenched for the Supreme Court. "
0 comments:
Post a Comment