Condemn Real Estate Agent, Notaire and ex-husband severally and jointly to pay for loss after they colluded to sell all my real estate properties without my consent and authorization.
I. FACTUAL BASIS
I married a French man in September 1995 in Nevada, USA without a contract. Our marriage is under the regime of community property. I owned a house in San Francisco before my marriage that I had purchased for $575,000.00. One year after our marriage, I included my husband’s name in the property title for no monetary consideration. (EXHIBIT 1: evidence of purchase of San Francisco home, change of deed to include his name as co-owner for ZERO amount/value consideration, sale of my San Francisco property are available to investors as protected evidence).
In December of 1999, we sold our San Francisco property for $2,015,000.00. This enabled us to move to France and we purchased real estate properties in Mougins (Cote D’Azur), in December 2000 with the help of the real estate agency X (EXHIBIT 2: the copy of the deed of sale of December 2000 is available to investors and password protected). The notaire that administered this transaction is Notary W who by no coincidence is in charge of the most recent sale. The real estate properties were a 360 sq meter villa with swimming pool and two lands, adjacent to the villa, totalling over 17000 sq. The entire property was on more than 22,000 sq meter of land. At the time of the purchase, the lands were not constructible. We paid a total of approximately 1,037,000.00 Eur for the real estate properties (including admin and tax fees) and immediately proceeded to renovate the villa (230,000.00 Eur). Therefore, we expended approximately 1,266,000.00 Eur. We didn’t have to buy the non-constructible adjacent lands but I am used to buying properties, renovating them and reselling. It was our intention to build villas on these lands if and when they become constructible.
We took a mortgage on these properties with a French Bank (Credit Agricole) as we needed money for a start-up company we created in August of 2000 in Sophia-Antipolis (Cote D’Azur).
In February 2005, I filed for divorce upon learning that my husband had been sexually abusing my daughter since she turned 9 years old (for which he was found guilty in January 2011; EXHIBIT 3 copy of judgments available to investors and password protected). My husband and I contacted the real estate agency X to sell our properties (the villa and the two non constructible lands) for a minimum of 1.5M Eur as part of the divorce sale. In May 2005, the judge appointed a notary Y to oversee the liquidation of our common goods. Despite the Tribunal’s “Ordonnance of 10 May 2005 explicitly appointing her (EXHIBIT 4: available to investors and password protected), Notary Y then claimed that she was not informed of her designation by the Tribunal of Grasse and that my ex husband, who was given the enjoyment of all our common properties during the divorce (see below), never contacted her (EXHIBIT 5: Notary Y’s professional profile and letter stating that she was never aware of her designation are available to investors as a protected documents). It should be noted that Notary Y is not a defendant in this case.
It is also important to note (and it is mentioned in the “Ordonnance” of 10 May 2005 mentioned above), that the enjoyment of our common properties was given to my ex-husband because as he was given the custody of my youngest daughter (despite the fact that my eldest daughter complained about the sexual abuse she suffered from him). Under the “Ordonnance”, my ex husband’s enjoyment of the properties obligated him to pay the mortgage and land taxes (“taxe d’habitation” and “taxe fonciere”), which he failed to do. I discovered two years later (2007) that my ex husband was in fact renting the villa for enormous rates (3,500eu per week during the low season; 4,500eu per week during the shoulder/medium season; 5000eu per week for high season and a special rate of 1000eu per day during the 2 weeks of the Cannes Film Fest (EXHIBIT 6: evidence of the price my ex husband was renting the villa for is available to investors as protected evidence). My ex husband turned our villa into an extremely profitable business, without my consent and without accounting of any of the profit/rental income, while myself and my eldest daughter (the one he sexually abused) were living in a shelter for homeless people in the south of france (2006-2007).
My lawyers at the time (legal aid lawyers as my ex husband had withdrawn all the money from our bank accounts and fired me from my position at the company my own money helped create) informed me that I could not do anything to change this situation before the divorce is declared. I would then get my share of the rental value of the properties during the process of liquidation of goods.
In April 2007, my husband petitioned the court to obtain authorization to unilaterally sell the villa and the two adjacent lands which he qualified “not constructible” for a minimum price of 1,050,000.00 Eur. The court of appeal of Aix en Provence granted him the permission to sell our properties without my consent (EXHIBIT 7: the Tribunal’s decision of 3 May 2007 is available to investors and password protected).
In November 2008, at a hearing for the pronouncement of my divorce, my lawyer stated that I had never received copy of the deed of sale of the properties and that the liquidation of the common goods had not yet started. My ex husband replied that there was nothing to liquidate as my ex husband had already sold the properties thanks to the Aix en Provence Court of Appeal’s permission to sale the properties without my consent. On this basis (just the statement from my husband and his lawyer), the divorce judge declared that there was nothing to liquidate and pronounced the divorce, without asking the notary in charge of the liquidation, Notary Y, for her report.
I appealed the November 2008 decision before the French Supreme Court (cour de cassation) which ruled in 2012 that the lower courts had violated articles of the law by judging that there were no common goods to liquidate (EXHIBIT 8: the French Supreme Court’s decision of June 2012 cancelling the lower court’s decision is available to investors and password protected). The Supreme Court therefore cancelled the November 2008 decision and ordered that the lower court ordered another notary to oversee the liquidation (EXHIBIT 9: the lower court’s decision of December 2013 appointing another notary is available to investors and password protected).
After refusing to hand me the deed of sale of the properties for almost two years, I finally obtained it from the notary W in charge of the most recent sale, thanks to police’s help, in 2010. Upon reception of the deed of sale, I learnt, inter alia, that my ex husband sold the properties through the real estate agency X and that the two adjacent lands, which were not deemed constructible, became constructible in March 2007. My ex husband had indeed lied at the 2007 hearing weeks later when stating that the lands were not constructible. Exchanges of emails between myself and notary W evidencing his bad faith and the chronology of efforts to obtain a copy of the deed of sale from notary W are available to investors and password protected (EXHIBIT 10).
Further to the renovation of the villa which my husband and I had undertaken with the help of a renowned architect, the villa alone was estimated at 2.7 million Eurs in 2008. This estimate was given by the real estate agency and I found several announces at this price. (EXHIBIT 11: The various announces to sell the villa – without the constructible lands were found later. These are available to investors and password protected)
The law in France is that within two years of a sale of an immovable good, the seller may ask to rescind the contract when the performances of the parties were unequal, on the grounds of “lesion”, as explained below. It should be noted from the time of the declaration of my divorce in November 2008, my lawyers have asked for a copy of the deed of sale from my ex-husband. Instead of handing over a copy, he intentionally duped the judges in the lower courts by telling them that there is nothing to liquidate nor to share. By the time the French Supreme Court annulled the decisions of the lower court in June 2012, the two year statutory limit has passed. Despite my best efforts, I received the deed of sale only days before the two-year limit and was not able to meet with a lawyer before this limit. I therefore argue that the notary, my former husband and the real estate agency, which will were all in possession of a copy of the deed of sale, intentionally concealed it from me until the police forced them to send it to me.
In 2010, my lawyer confirmed that the contract I signed with real estate agency X in 2005 correctly stated that the lands were then not constructible. However, the lands became constructible in 2007 which is a change which real estate agency X failed to report to me, contrary to the terms of our contract which explicitly state that the agency had a duty to report all material. Real estate agency X’s failure to report this change strengthens my argument that they also colluded against me.
I instructed my first lawyer to file a lawsuit against real estate agency X, on 10 October 2011, to it has failed to respond (EXHIBIT 12: a copy of our submission against real estate agency X is available to investors and is password protected). The court gave real estate agency X until 2013 to respond but failed to do so.
Moreover, to this day, my former husband has failed to give me my share of the sale price of the 1,050,000.00 Eur. The same notary W has disbursed the residual of the sale without my knowledge, consent or approval. The summary of disbursement provided by notary W show that the May 2005 Ordonnance was not followed such as my ex-husband failed to pay all the taxes and mortgage related to his use and enjoyment of our properties. There are also many disbursements made that are not even common debts such as a big payment to my ex-husband’s lawyer. Current notary Me. Patrick IVALDI designated in February 2014 to administer the liquidation of common goods have not received detailed accounting and justification/proofs for the disbursement of monies that notary W has done without my knowledge or consent despite demands from Me Patrick IVALDI (EXHIBIT 13: a copy of the summary of these disbursements is available to investors and is password protected).
In March 2013, I instructed my lawyer to add as defendants my former husband and the notary W, which was done on 29 November 2013 (EXHIBIT 14: the document is available to investors and password protected), and a hearing was scheduled on 22 May 2015 . I requested a postponement since I had to change lawyer. My lawyer at this time called me up and told me that he wants 20% instead of the 10% we had verbally agreed on. I refused and he agreed for me to find another lawyer. In addition, I discovered that this lawyer made a careless mistake of not updating my address in the “assignation” he prepared against the three parties. It was then postponed to September 19 2015. My ex-husband initiated an incident complaining about my address in the assignation. He did this in the past – in December 2013 with the Court of Appeals Aix en Provence and he lost. He does it again in the lower court as a frivolous incident for the purpose of delaying the procedure and also to add to my cost. So the September 19 2015 hearing will be to hear this incident (EXHIBIT 15: my curent lawyer’s response to this incident is available to investors and password protected). After this incident, the hearing to discuss my case will be scheduled. We hope to have that by December 2015.
Moreover, to this day, my former husband has failed to give me my share of the sale price of the 1,050,000.00 Eur. As soon as the Court of Appeals in February 2014 designated a new notary, Me. Patrick IVALDI to administer our liquidation of common goods, my ex-husband was ordered to meet with the new notary to start the inventory of everything he sold without my authorization as well as to start the liquidation process. He refused to meet with Me. Patrick IVALDI. In July 2014, he fled France and moved to Mauritius. To this day, he refuses to disclose his address to Me Patrick IVALDI. His submission to my real estate lawsuit shows the address of his lawyer as his address. I hired a detective in Mauritius and I was informed that he and his russian mistress and 2 sons live in the most luxurious part of Mauritius. My ex husband’s address in Mauritius is known and can be divulged to investors upon request (EXHIBIT 16). He and his mistress created a real estate company in Mauritius. I contacted the passport and immigration office in Mauritius as well as the Deputy Prosecutor to inform them that my ex husband had pending lawsuits against him in France. I also informed them that he has been convicted of sexually abusing a minor in January 2011. I sent them all the documents and the notary now in charge of the liquidation, Me Ivaldi confirmed that my ex husband refused to respond to his letters (EXHIBIT 17: this email is available to investors and password protected). Credential of Me Patrick IVALDI can be found here: http://www.cr-aixenprovence.notaires.fr/fr/annuaire/fiche-office/office-scp-patrick-ivaldi-serge-granata-goldman-bernard-monier,1181,513.html
It should also be noted that notary W, a defendant to the case, has only given Me. IVALDI a summary of what happened to the proceeds from the sale of all our properties. To this date, notary W refuses to send the details and the documents evidencing each disbursement to Me. IVALDI.
II. ISSUES WHICH THE TRIBUNAL WILL DECIDE
At issue is whether my former husband illegally obtained permission to unilaterally sell the properties without my consent in 2007 by duping the judges of material facts (constructability of the lands) related to the true value of our real estate properties.
At issue is whether the real estate agency X, my former husband and the notary W intentionally concealed the material change about the constructability of the lands and 2008 deed of sale to prevent me from asking to rescind the contract (by bringing a “lesion” claim) on the ground that the sales price was too low.
At issue is whether the real estate agency X breached the terms of its contract when failing to report to me 1) the sale of the property, and 2) that the lands adjacent to the villa had become constructible (which constituted a material change to the properties).
At issue is whether the notary W was obligated to at the very least inform me and advise me of 1) the sale of the property, and 2) that the lands adjacent to the villa had become constructible (which constituted a material change to the properties) since he had absolute knowledge that I am a co-owner of said properties.
There is no issue or question of whether I am entitled to receive a portion of the sale price of 1,050,000.00 Eur. The issue here is whether the notary W was obligated to inform me of the deed of sale prior to disbursing monies from the residual of the sale until there was hardly anything left.
III. RULES OF LAW
With respect to the real estate agency’s obligation update the litigant when the land became constructible:
In accordance with Articles 1991, 1992 and 1993 of the French Civil Code, the real estate agency was obliged to inform the litigant of all new elements likely to modify the terms of the sale (e.g. price, legislation, etc). The dispositions above mentioned further provide that the real estate agency is responsible of the damages caused by the breach of its obligations.
With respect to the litigant’s ability to rescind the contract:
The rule in France according to Art. 1118 of the French Code civil is that a seller of an immovable good may ask for the rescission of a contract on the basis of “lesion” when the performances of both parties were unequal.
The rule in France is that the party must ask for rescission of the contract within two years of the signing of the contract or will lose its right to bring the claim, according to Art. 1676 of the French Code civil. The two-year limit cannot be suspended or extended.
The other relevant rules of law relating to the rescission of a contract for “lesion” are available at Arts. 1674 – 1685 of the French Code civil (http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do;?idSectionTA=LEGISCTA000006150284&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006070721&dateTexte=vig)
With respect to the obligation of the notaire W to inform and to advise all parties. These are some relevant case law decided by the French Supreme Court:
The duty of counsel is an absolute duty that the notary owes to his customers. (Le devoir de conseil est un devoir absolu que le notaire doit à ses clients)
“the notary shall inform the parties and ensure the validity and effectiveness of the acts written by him” (V. Civ., 1st ., Oct. 11, 1966, D. 1967. 209 notes Mr. Ancel, December 12, 1995, Bull civ I, No. 459;… April 4, 2001, Bull civ I, No. 104;… 3 Civ. 21 Feb., 2001, Bull. Civ. III, No. 20), the interest of this judgment is to clarify that the notary’s liability is not based on the behavior of its customers.
The solution chosen is not surprising in that it is part of a consistent line to increase the scope of the duty of advice from notaries, including where the parties seeking their assistance were able to access all useful information. Breaking with an established solution whereby the quality of customer experience and could have affect the intensity of the duty to advise the notary (1st Civ, 2 July 1991, Bull civ I, No. 228;… D. 1991. IR 219; RDI 1992. 348, obs D. Tomasin. RTD civ. 1992. 758, obs. J. Mestre), the Supreme Court considers today that this duty is absolute and it cannot be mitigated (V., regarding the customer’s personal skills, Civ . 1st, December 12, 1995, Bull civ I, No. 459;… June 9, 1998, Bull civ I, No. 205;.. July 12, 2005, Bull civ I, No. 323;… D. 2005 . IR 2340, for the case of a client himself notary Civ V. 1st, April 3, 2007, Bull civ I, No. 142;…. D. 2007. AJ 1271). This broad concept of counsel and advise prevents in particular the notary disclaiming responsibility by merely conferring authentic form to the latter (Civ. 3e, 10 Jul. 1970 Bull. Civ. III, No. 484) or, as suggested here, to escape liability by claiming the futility of advice. The notary, who in real estate matters, must verify the existence and consistency of property (Civ 1st, December 3, 2008, Bull Civ III, No. 197;… RLDC 2009/57 23, obs.. Bugnicourt), so has every incentive to be cautious and anticipate any deficiency providing all the parties necessary information.
IV. CONCLUSION
The failure of the notary W, the real estate agency X and my former husband to inform me that the lands adjacent to the villa had become constructible (which constituted a material change to the properties) amounts to collusion.
We are asking the court to hold these entities (real estate agent, notaire, and ex-husband) severally and jointly liable to pay for damages. There will always be unscrupulous crooks such as my ex-husband but this scam cannot be done without the help of these 2 entities: the real estate agency is a business entity and the notaire, is an auxillary of justice in france. Both are insured to operate and do business in France. Severally means that it is not my concern who will pay what part of the damage. The division of blame is not my concern. It will be the condemned parties concern amongst themselves. And this will not affect the condemnation / judgment.
Because of this collusion, I was deprived of the opportunity to improve the lands and increase considerably the monetary value of the properties. Had I been made aware of the material change, I would have:
1) Obtained the building permits for the two lands
2) rented the existing villa as per the rental price set by my ex-husband (3,500eu per week; 4,500eu per week; 5000eu per week)
3) Sold the villa for its real price of 2.7 million Eur
4) Use the proceeds to build on the two adjacent lands
5) Sold the two villas for 3 millions Eur each
The loss of the opportunity therefore amounts to a net loss of 7.5 millions Eur. The cost of construction of 2 villas (approximately 1.2m eu million is already deducted from this net amount). The worksheet calculation is available to investors and password protected (EXHIBIT 18).
IMPORTANT TO NOTE:
Unlike other countries, in France there is an absence of obligation for the victim to mitigate (limit) their loss… in the interest of who caused the loss. France does not follow the same anglo-american legal concept of “duty to mitigate damages”.
Par arret du 2 Juillet 2014, au visa de l’article 1382 du code civil, La premiere chambre civile de la cour de cassation a confirme sa jurisprudence, en enoncant a nouveau le principe selon lequel “l’auteur d’un dommage doit en reparer toutes les consequences et la victime n’est pas tenue de limiter son prejudice dans l’interest du responsable”, y compris lorsque ce prejudice est de nature economique.
Translation in english:
By decision of 2 July 2014, in view of the article 1382 of the french civil code, the First Civil Chamber of the (French) Supreme Court confirms its case, stating again the principle that “the author of the damage must repair all the consequences and the victim is not required to limit its prejudice in the interest of the person responsible (for the damage) “, including when the prejudice is economic in nature.
USE OF FUNDS:
I have already paid some of the legal fees. I actually need only $7,000.00. The funds will be used to:
1. pay for the first hearing in September 19, 2015 to hear a frivolous incident brought up by my ex-husband regarding my address. My lawyer has asked for him to be condemned to pay 3000,00 eur for this frivolous incident. So if the judge grants this 3000,00 eu – I will add it into the $7,000.00 funds.
2. pay for an expert immobiliere (real estate expert) who will evaluate my opportunity loss based on my being able to build 2 big villas in the constructible lands of more than 17,000 sqm. This real estate expert, will evaluate how much I can sell 2 big and high quality villas in Mougins minus the construction cost; how much I can sell the existing villa (in the picture of the campaign). The latter part is not so difficult because immediately after my properties were sold, I saw listings for just the existing villa for 2.7million euros.
3. pay for the next hearing which will hear the basis of my case. we hope to get this scheduled soon. in anycase, opportunity loss (damages) increases as time passes. it’s actually in their interest to have this heard in a timely manner.
You may contact me by sending me a message here through invest4justice.com in order to obtain the password to access all the documents mentioned in my campaign.
Lawyer handling my case is Me. Jean-Michel CAMUS (LEGALCY AVOCATS CONSEIL: http://www.legalcy-avocats.fr/fr/). He is taking a small commission of 10% success fee). All documents can be furnished. They are password protected.
Returns of $15 for $1: Condemn Real Estate Agent and Notaire to Pay for Loss After They Colluded to Sell All My Real Estate Properties Without My Consent and Authorization
No comments:
Post a Comment