Cyprus Law | Advocate’s Uneven Treatment For Clients

Cyprus Law | Advocate's Uneven Treatment For ClientsWITHOUT PREJUDICE

Cyprus Law | Advocate’s Uneven Treatment For Clients

Another mess is unfolding in the property market that involves Memorandums.

This is a dilly. It seems that the same Advocate has acted in the purchase for several of the purchasers. It is also the same old story, the developer reluctant to meet his Contractual obligations and the purchasers are suffering. It then gets even more interesting. The Advocate who acted for many of the purchasers, seems to have forgotten ‘his duty of care’ to them all, in that he has applied for and obtained a Memorandum on the whole site for just one of the purchasers. The owner who has the blanket Memorandum wants his money back plus compensation, so clearly to achieve that he may well call for an Auction. Oh dear here we go again. Two of the other purchasers have also obtained Memorandums but these are said to be only on their own properties.

Clearly the blanket Memorandum takes precedence since it was obtained first.

One assumes then that they too would be looking for their money back plus compensation. Other owners are now wondering where they stand in this ‘goddam awful mess’. Should they look to take action to obtain a Memorandum? You then have to say, at what point is it viable since the value of the site must be reducing in a depressed market and it is a fact that prices at Auction bear no relation to market value, even a depressed market value.

The next question has to be, what about those who registered their Contract of Sale before the Memorandum was granted and was a temporary Injunction granted first? On what date? Did it precede the registering of the Contracts of Sale? We were all led to believe that by registering a Contract of Sale, the interest of the purchaser was safe guarded. Let us see if this is true?

This is getting more and more complex as the story unfolds and where does the buck stop? Some may think on the desk of the Advocate who may well have acted in the best interest of one of his clients but disadvantaged his other clients by doing so. Is this lawful? Is this ethical? Is this fair? Is this allowed?

No names, no pack drills but another example of how the Permission to Purchase process severely disadvantages purchasers by taking too long and how the situation is not and has never been addressed.

If Permission to Purchase were granted so that the property was immediately transferred into the purchasers’ names, this unholy situation could not exist. The developer/landowner/builder would be obliged to pay his taxes at that point or lose his sale. If it were found later that the purchaser had lied on his PTP application, it could be revoked and the property forfeited. Knowing this I do not think any purchaser would lie. The answer is so simple, but of course the Advocates would be less busy.


Power to the people

Citizen Smith


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Comments are closed.