{
  "schemaVersion": "1.0",
  "controlDate": "2026-08-23",
  "caseId": "PROC-2011-1260",
  "spotlight": true,
  "classification": ["FLAGSHIP_CASE", "TEST_CASE", "PRE_INSOLVENCY_OPERATOR_DISPUTE", "PROCEDURAL_IDENTITY_TEST"],
  "status": "PUBLIC-READY-WITH-QUALIFICATION",
  "firstInstance": {
    "court": "Juzgado de Primera Instancia nº 4 de Arrecife",
    "procedure": "Juicio verbal (desahucio por precario)",
    "number": "1260/2011",
    "nigStatus": "WITHHELD_FROM_PUBLIC_DERIVATIVES",
    "sourceStatus": "VERIFIED"
  },
  "appeal": {
    "court": "Audiencia Provincial de Las Palmas",
    "roll": "793/2012",
    "resolution": "Sentencia 89/2014",
    "date": "2014-01-13",
    "sourceStatus": "VERIFIED",
    "holdingEs": "La Audiencia estimó el recurso de la parte actora, revocó parcialmente la sentencia de instancia, decretó el desahucio de CEXP y Monterecco de las 18 unidades de los actores, impuso a Monterecco las costas de primera instancia y no hizo especial pronunciamiento sobre las costas de apelación.",
    "holdingEn": "The Court allowed the claimants' appeal, partially reversed the first-instance judgment, ordered the eviction of CEXP and Monterecco from the claimants' 18 units, imposed first-instance costs on Monterecco and made no special appellate costs order.",
    "ratioEs": "La Sala tuvo por acreditado que Monterecco poseía los apartamentos y las llaves, consideró justificada la ampliación contra ella y aplicó el levantamiento del velo por la estrecha vinculación entre CEXP, Monterecco y LPB en esta controversia.",
    "ratioEn": "The Court found that Monterecco possessed the apartments and keys, held the extension against it justified, and applied veil lifting because of the close CEXP–Monterecco–LPB relationship in this dispute.",
    "scopeLimitEs": "No decidió la titularidad o autoridad sobre el resto del complejo mixto, el gobierno comunitario posterior, los hechos de 2018, el Concurso 36/2012 ni responsabilidad penal.",
    "scopeLimitEn": "It did not decide title or authority over the rest of the mixed-ownership complex, later Community governance, the 2018 events, Insolvency 36/2012 or criminal responsibility."
  },
  "canonicalQuestions": [
    "Who owned the relevant units at each material date?",
    "What did the 2008 sale/completion and exploitation arrangements require?",
    "What exactly did the plaintiffs plead in December 2011?",
    "What changed in February 2012?",
    "What exact procedural mechanism brought Monterecco Sun Park, S.L. into the case?",
    "What did the first-instance court actually decide?",
    "What did AP Las Palmas 89/2014 actually decide?",
    "Which later actors relied on the judgment, and for what proposition?",
    "Was any later use broader than the proposition actually adjudicated?",
    "What evidence would disprove the Project's procedural-fraud/abuse hypothesis?"
  ],
  "propositions": [
    {
      "id": "PROC-2011-1260-ORIGIN",
      "status": "VERIFIED",
      "publication": "PUBLIC-READY",
      "textEs": "El procedimiento JV 1260/2011 se inició como juicio verbal de desahucio por precario en el JPI nº 4 de Arrecife.",
      "textEn": "JV 1260/2011 began as a verbal eviction-for-precario proceeding in JPI no. 4 Arrecife."
    },
    {
      "id": "PROC-2012-1260-EXTENSION",
      "status": "VERIFIED_WITH_LIMITATION",
      "publication": "PUBLIC-READY-WITH-QUALIFICATION",
      "textEs": "El escrito de 23-feb-2012 registra que la parte actora amplió la acción contra Monterecco Sun Park, S.L. tras conocer un cambio en la explotación.",
      "textEn": "The 23-Feb-2012 pleading records that the claimant side expanded the action against Monterecco Sun Park, S.L. after learning of a change in exploitation.",
      "limitationEs": "La caracterización jurídica exacta —ampliación, sucesión, sustitución, acumulación u otra— debe fijarse con el escrito completo y la resolución que lo admitió.",
      "limitationEn": "The exact legal characterisation —extension, succession, substitution, joinder or another mechanism— must be fixed from the complete pleading and the order that handled it."
    },
    {
      "id": "JUD-2014-089",
      "status": "VERIFIED",
      "publication": "PUBLIC-READY",
      "textEs": "La apelación se tramitó como Rollo 793/2012. La Sentencia 89/2014 de 13-ene-2014 estimó el recurso actor, revocó parcialmente la instancia y decretó el desahucio de CEXP y Monterecco de las 18 unidades de los actores; impuso a Monterecco las costas de primera instancia y no impuso costas de apelación.",
      "textEn": "The appeal proceeded as Roll 793/2012. Judgment 89/2014 dated 13-Jan-2014 allowed the claimants' appeal, partially reversed the first-instance judgment and ordered the eviction of CEXP and Monterecco from the claimants' 18 units; it imposed first-instance costs on Monterecco and no appellate costs.",
      "ratioEs": "Tuvo por acreditada la posesión y disponibilidad de llaves por Monterecco, justificó la ampliación contra ella y levantó el velo por la vinculación CEXP–Monterecco–LPB para resolver esta controversia.",
      "ratioEn": "It found Monterecco's possession and control of keys, justified the extension against it and lifted the veil because of the CEXP–Monterecco–LPB relationship for this dispute.",
      "limitationEs": "No decide el resto de Sun Park, autoridad comunitaria posterior, hechos de 2018, el Concurso 36/2012 ni responsabilidad penal; firmeza y ejecución requieren fuentes separadas.",
      "limitationEn": "It does not decide the rest of Sun Park, later Community authority, the 2018 events, Insolvency 36/2012 or criminal responsibility; finality and enforcement require separate sources."
    },
    {
      "id": "UNIT-1260-18-PERIMETER",
      "status": "VERIFIED_WITH_LIMITATION",
      "publication": "PUBLIC-READY-WITH-QUALIFICATION",
      "textEs": "La extracción actual del expediente identifica un perímetro de 18 unidades vinculado a la parte actora.",
      "textEn": "The current extraction of the record identifies an 18-unit perimeter linked to the claimant side.",
      "limitationEs": "Debe normalizarse propietario, finca registral, apartamento/local, coeficiente y estado de participación para cada unidad.",
      "limitationEn": "Owner, registry property, apartment/commercial identifier, coefficient and participation status must be normalised for each unit."
    },
    {
      "id": "CEXP-LPB-8896",
      "status": "VERIFIED_WITH_LIMITATION",
      "publication": "PUBLIC-READY-WITH-QUALIFICATION",
      "textEs": "La sentencia dice que la Comunidad de Explotación estaba constituida en un 88,96% por los apartamentos pertenecientes a LPB.",
      "textEn": "The judgment says the Comunidad de Explotación was constituted 88.96% by the apartments belonging to LPB.",
      "limitationEs": "No equivale a autoridad sobre las 18 unidades, ni a mayoría válida de la Comunidad de Propietarios en cualquier fecha posterior.",
      "limitationEn": "It does not equate to authority over the 18 units or a valid property-community majority at any later date."
    },
    {
      "id": "HYP-PROCEDURAL-EQUATION-001",
      "status": "VERIFIED_WITH_LIMITATION",
      "publication": "PUBLIC-READY-WITH-QUALIFICATION",
      "textEs": "La iniciativa procesal que conectó el pleito existente con Monterecco fue promovida por la parte actora; la AP después tuvo por acreditada la posesión de Monterecco, justificó la ampliación y aplicó el levantamiento del velo en esta controversia.",
      "textEn": "The procedural initiative connecting the existing litigation to Monterecco was claimant-driven; the Provincial Court later found Monterecco's possession, justified the extension and applied veil lifting in this dispute.",
      "limitationEs": "Quedan abiertos el mecanismo procesal exacto de primera instancia, la firmeza/ejecución y cualquier reutilización posterior más amplia que el perímetro adjudicado.",
      "limitationEn": "The exact first-instance procedural mechanism, finality/enforcement and any later reuse broader than the adjudicated perimeter remain open."
    },
    {
      "id": "HYP-PROCEDURAL-FRAUD-001",
      "status": "WORKING_HYPOTHESIS",
      "publication": "LEGAL-REVIEW-RECOMMENDED",
      "textEs": "Debe investigarse, sin presumirlo, si existió una maquinación fraudulenta, fraude procesal, estafa procesal, falsedad documental u otro abuso de procedimiento.",
      "textEn": "It must be investigated, without presuming it, whether there was fraudulent contrivance, procedural fraud, procedural fraud offence, documentary falsity or another abuse of proceedings.",
      "requiredProof": ["specific act or representation", "objective inconsistency or material omission", "actor-specific knowledge", "judicial or institutional reliance", "causal consequence", "benefit/harm", "alternative innocent explanation tested"]
    }
  ],
  "sourceManifest": [
    {
      "evidenceId": "EVID-2011-1260-CLAIM",
      "title": "Juicio Desahucio por Precario 1260-2011 23DIC2011.pdf",
      "type": "originating pleading / court-file copy",
      "custody": "Google Drive source family",
      "publication": "REPOSITORY-ONLY-UNTIL-PUBLIC-SOURCE-CHECK"
    },
    {
      "evidenceId": "EVID-2012-1260-EXTENSION",
      "title": "Desahucio 1260-2011 ampliación demanda MRSL.pdf",
      "type": "claim extension / amendment",
      "custody": "Google Drive source family",
      "publication": "REPOSITORY-ONLY-UNTIL-PUBLIC-SOURCE-CHECK"
    },
    {
      "evidenceId": "EVID-2012-1260-FIRSTINSTANCE",
      "title": "Proc 1260_2011 (Sentencia Desahucio).pdf",
      "type": "first-instance judgment",
      "custody": "Google Drive source family",
      "publication": "REPOSITORY-ONLY-UNTIL-PUBLIC-SOURCE-CHECK"
    },
    {
      "evidenceId": "EVID-2014-AP89",
      "aliases": ["AP89-2014-JV1260"],
      "title": "Sentencia Proc1260-2011 13ENE2014.pdf",
      "type": "appeal judgment",
      "custody": "Google Drive source family",
      "publication": "PUBLIC-REDACTED-TRANSCRIPT",
      "sha256": "1bce9ad6111645393ee2f23915b7df05a9a879181f2c19fad83f6b3e8989c1ec",
      "publicDerivative": "evidence/jv-1260-2011/full-text/AP89-2014-JV1260-sentencia-redacted.md",
      "privateOriginal": true
    }
  ],
  "dependencyModel": [
    {"from":"OWN-2008-001","to":"UNIT-1260-18-PERIMETER","relation":"CONSTRAINS_TITLE_AND_PARTICIPATION"},
    {"from":"AUTH-2011-001","to":"PROC-2011-1260","relation":"ALLEGED_UPSTREAM_AUTHORITY_CONTEXT","status":"OPEN"},
    {"from":"PROC-2011-1260","to":"PROC-2012-1260-EXTENSION","relation":"PROCEDURAL_CONTINUATION_OR_EXTENSION","status":"VERIFIED_WITH_LIMITATION"},
    {"from":"PROC-2012-1260-EXTENSION","to":"JUD-2014-089","relation":"DOWNSTREAM_APPELLATE_PATH","status":"VERIFIED"}
  ],
  "bookLinks": [
    {"id":"BOOK-JUSTICE-IN-PIECES","routeEn":"/por-derecho/en/books/justice-in-pieces/","routeEs":"/por-derecho/es/libros/justicia-en-fragmentos/","reason":"case study in fragmented decisions and later institutional reuse"},
    {"id":"BOOK-LAW-MOWER-MAN","routeEn":"/por-derecho/en/books/law-mower-man/","routeEs":"/por-derecho/es/libros/law-mower-man/","reason":"case study in legal-tech reconstruction, entity resolution and procedural provenance"}
  ],
  "sourceControl": "archive/SUN_PARK_FLAGSHIP_CASE_JV1260_AP89_CANONICAL_CONTROL_17AUG2026.md"
}