The ruling confirms the previous decision by the Court of First Instance number 1 of Lleida and dismisses the appeal filed by the defendants. Both parties had signed an earnest money contract, agreeing that the 4,000 euro advance payment would benefit the sellers if the sale did not materialize, which is what happened.
The sellers initially argued they should not return the money because the buyers had acted “negligently.” However, the buyers, represented by lawyer Xavier Prats of Prats Advocats, took the case to court, claiming the sale failed because, as a subsidized housing unit (VPO), they did not meet the administrative requirements, and the bank denied the mortgage.
The judge argued that the signed document stated the property would be “free of charges and encumbrances of any kind.” The simple note showed it was a VPO, cataloged as a “charge” on the property. The court concluded that the selling party was untruthful, leading to an error on the part of the buyers, who obviously would not have been interested in the acquisition had they known about the encumbrance.
The solution provided by the judge is in accordance with the law, meaning the withdrawal from the contract is justified, as the concealment of a charge of this nature requires it.
The sellers appealed the initial sentence before the Audiencia de Lleida, insisting the fault lay with the buyers for failing to check the property's status. The magistrate analyzed that subsidized housing units carry charges that affect sales or financing, confirming the initial sentence, which is now final and cannot be appealed.
