John G., in a lawsuit brought on 6 May 2014. District Court in P., demanded that his brother Zenon G. gave him a developed property residential building, located in the Main Street P. 190. He pointed out that on 10 February 2012. John G., selling property Zenon G., counting on the fact that bart live in this property, along with decrepit mother party, which will ensure appropriate care. John G was unable to care for her mother, because shortly after the conclusion of the contract left to work abroad. Zenon G. rented disputed property, including profits that is spent solely for your and concubines, with whom currently resides. In turn, their mother lives in an extended family that takes care of her. John G. convinced of this when he returned to the country in January 2013. On 20 March 2014. John G. made a statement in the form of a notarial act of evading the consequences of the complex in the agreement of 10 February 2012. Declaration of intent . He relied on the error of that expected from his brother Zenon G. care of his mother and provide her apartment on the property. It is the conviction led him to conclude the contract for sale for a very low price. Meanwhile, on the part of his brother met him profession.
Defendant, in response to the lawsuit, alleged lis pendens, indicating that the plaintiff brings an action for payment already rent against the tenant disputed property. In those proceedings, Jan G. appointed me the same circumstances, as in this case, claiming that he is the owner of the property, and therefore the person authorized to obtain the rent. Zenon G. seeking to dismiss the complaint, denied that the plaintiff undertook to ensure the mother to care. He picked up, too, that the content of a notarial act, there was no complaint regarding the care of his mother, which the plaintiff admitted during the process.
The District Court dismissed the action in P. accepted that indicated by the John G. circumstances lead to the conclusion that a declaration of intent on the agreement of 10 February 2012. Acted under the influence of an error caused by Zenon G. was a significant error. The District Court held that if the plaintiff knew that the brother did not take care of his mother, did not enter into a contract of sale for a price much lower than market prices. But the reason is not upheld by the District Court were to assume that the reason for the statement on the repeal of the legal consequences of a declaration of intent founded after a year, since he learned that his mother’s brother did not provide appropriate care.
MISSION
1. Discuss the reasons justifying the ability to evade the legal consequences of a declaration of intent filed under the influence of error. Indicate what date can effectively evade the legal consequences of a declaration of intent filed under the influence of an error, what is the nature of the term and whether the court may take into account the lapse of the term of office.
2. Rate legitimacy raised by the defendant’s plea of lis pendens.
3. Rate issued by the District Court in P. settlement and motifs that he used.
Source: Ministry of Justice
No comments:
Post a Comment