A real proceeding at two judicial levels
The file is identified as eviction-for-precario verbal proceedings 1260/2011 before JPI no. 4 Arrecife. The appeal proceeded as Roll 793/2012 and culminated in Judgment 89/2014 dated 13 January 2014.
SPOTLIGHT · TEST CASE · FLAGSHIP CASE
JV 1260/2011 → AP Las Palmas 89/2014
An eviction-for-precario proceeding elevated by Por Derecho as a test case: not to prejudge fraud, but because it lets a reviewer trace the same dispute from units and hotel operation through procedural identity, judicial decision and possible later institutional reuse.
ONE SET OF LABELS · MULTIPLE CONNECTIONS
Two proceedings, several connections—not two isolated disputes.
Track A means the private-owner proceedings concerning eighteen units. Track B means the later LPB/Pink contract, rent and calificación proceedings. Civil and possessory analysis and criminal and forensic analysis apply to both tracks; they are not alternative meanings of A and B.
The reviewed record identifies connections through Community representation, debt and voting, operating costs, possession and keys, AC authorisations, later property transfers and the reuse of institutional positions. An express citation of AP 89/2014 is one evidence question, not the gateway to every other connection.
The question is what each actor supplied, received, authorised or subsequently used—and what changed as a result. Gil Marer alleges that these connections were knowingly instrumentalised to displace the operating side and consolidate or defend control. The documented connections, their effects and that criminal allegation are assessed separately.
Read the connection matrix and DI248 return path → · Authority, control and recovery account →
FLAGSHIP
CASE
CASE
Why it sits on a pedestal
A small case can expose a large system.
This file forces the reader to separate registered title, hotel participation, possession, CEXP, Monterecco, claimant initiative, the true scope of the judgments and what third parties may later have done with that judicial result.
TEST CASE
The question is not merely who won the eviction claim.
The institutional question is which facts entered the court, how Monterecco entered litigation already underway, what each judicial level actually decided, and which propositions may later have been reused.
The extension against Monterecco was claimant-driven
The 23 February 2012 pleading records that, after learning of a change in exploitation, the claimant side expanded the action against Monterecco Sun Park, S.L. The exact legal character of that step must be fixed from the complete pleading and the court order that handled it.
18 units against a hotel operated as one economic whole
The current extraction identifies an 18-unit claimant-side perimeter. The reconstruction task is to map each property, owner, 2008 obligation, participation or withdrawal from hotel exploitation, and litigation position.
88.96% does not mean universal authority
The judgment says the Comunidad de Explotación “was constituted 88.96% by the apartments” belonging to LPB. That wording does not equate to rights over the 18 units or a valid property-community majority at any later date.
TWO DECISIONS · ONE FILE
First instance and appeal must be read separately.
Por Derecho does not use the appeal judgment as a substitute for the first-instance record. The reconstruction must show which allegation, evidence and issue reached each court.
Level 1 · Arrecife
JPI no. 4 · JV 1260/2011
Formal object: eviction for precario.
Reconstruction question: what basis of possession/hotel exploitation was attributed to CEXP and later Monterecco, and what facts about the hotel model and the claimant units were actually placed before the court?
23-DEC-2011 claim located23-FEB-2012 extension locatedFull court file still to close
Level 2 · Provincial Court
Roll 793/2012 · Judgment 89/2014
Holding: the Court 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 made no special appellate costs order.
Adverse ratio: it 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.
Limit: 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.
Holding and ratio reviewedAdverse result preservedFinality, enforcement and later use open
FORENSIC CORE
The CEXP → Monterecco procedural equation was claimant-driven.
The site does not state that CEXP corporately “became” Monterecco. The Provincial Court did find possession by Monterecco, a justified extension and veil lifting for this case; the exact first-instance mechanism and any broader later reuse remain open.
1 · Existing litigation
Action against CEXP / the operator then identified.
Action against CEXP / the operator then identified.
→
2 · February 2012
Change/cession in exploitation to be defined by the primary instrument.
Change/cession in exploitation to be defined by the primary instrument.
→
3 · Claimant initiative
23-FEB-2012: action expanded against Monterecco Sun Park, S.L.
23-FEB-2012: action expanded against Monterecco Sun Park, S.L.
→
4 · First instance
Recover the act fixing the exact procedural mechanism.
Recover the act fixing the exact procedural mechanism.
→
5 · AP 89/2014
Possession, justified extension and veil lifting adjudicated for the 18-unit dispute.
Possession, justified extension and veil lifting adjudicated for the 18-unit dispute.
SCOPE DISCIPLINE
What a judgment decides is not the same as what someone later says it decided.
This page will track any later “over-reading” of the result: recital, ratio, dispositive order and institutional reuse must remain separate.
| Proposition | Current status | What it does not automatically prove |
|---|---|---|
| Existence of JV 1260/2011 and appeal 793/2012 | Verified | Does not prove fraud or Community authority. |
| 23-FEB-2012 extension against Monterecco | Verified with limitation | Does not prove CEXP and Monterecco were the same legal person or that every right/liability automatically transferred. |
| 18-unit perimeter | Verified with context | Does not make that perimeter a hotel majority or confer authority over the remainder. |
| Eviction of CEXP and Monterecco from the 18 units; first-instance costs against Monterecco; no special appellate costs order | Adjudicated holding | Does not decide the rest of Sun Park, later Community authority, the 2018 events, Insolvency 36/2012 or criminal responsibility. |
| Monterecco possession/keys, justified extension and veil lifting because of the CEXP–Monterecco–LPB relationship | Adjudicated ratio | Limited to this dispute; it does not merge the entities for every other purpose or date. |
| CEXP “constituted 88.96% by the apartments” belonging to LPB, as stated in the judgment | Verified with context | Does not authorise exploitation or retention of third-party units without legal basis and does not decide later property-community majorities. |
| Fraudulent contrivance / procedural fraud / procedural fraud offence hypothesis | Investigative hypothesis | No criminal conclusion follows merely because the litigation was adverse or the extension was claimant-driven. |
PARALLEL COMMAND
The case is analysed civilly and criminal-forensically at the same time.
No civil irregularity automatically becomes a crime; no procedural formality by itself closes a separate criminal question if evidence independently establishes representation, knowledge, use and consequence.
Civil and possessory analysis
Registered title · consent · exploitation · standing · basis of possession · effect of the February-2012 cession · admission of Monterecco · scope of each judgment.
Criminal and forensic analysis
Act or representation → documentary reality → knowledge → material omission/manipulation if any → judicial understanding → decision → benefit/harm → causation → alternative innocent explanation.
FIRST REVIEW PACK
Documents needed to close the test case.
The source binaries are under custody control; direct public publication is decided document by document. The page's value is to show which piece is missing and which conclusion it could change.
| Source | Status | Question it resolves |
|---|---|---|
| 23-DEC-2011 claim · JV 1260/2011 | Located | Initial version of facts, units, possession and defendants. |
| 23-FEB-2012 extension against Monterecco | Located | Origin of the claimant-driven procedural continuity/equation. |
| Order admitting/handling the extension | Priority | Exact legal mechanism used by the court. |
| Defence + hearing + evidence | Priority | What contradiction and what documents the judge actually had. |
| First-instance judgment | Located · granularisation pending | Facts and reasoning supporting the result. |
| AP Judgment 89/2014 · redacted text | Holding and ratio reviewed | Eviction of both defendants from the 18 units, costs and exact limits. |
| 18 units · Registry + 2008 | Keystone | Who held title and which obligations/participation existed before litigation. |
| 2011 ACTA + vote + coefficients + debt | Keystone | Whether there is a real link to the alleged Community-authority rupture. |
| Later uses of the judgment | Open | Whether there was repetition, independent revalidation or institutional over-reading. |
FROM CASE FILE TO KNOWLEDGE
The flagship case is also a bridge into the books.
The repository holds the evidence. The books explain the wider problem: fragmentation, reuse of decisions and how legal technology can reconstruct a traceable factual system without replacing judges, prosecutors or auditors.
Natural case studyJustice in PiecesJV 1260/2011 shows how a narrow decision can become one fragment later incorporated into a much wider institutional story.
MethodLaw Mower ManA practical example of entity resolution, chronology, provenance, dependency and technology-assisted analysis without turning AI into evidence.
PROVISIONAL CONCLUSION
Flagship because it can change the reading of the wider system — in either direction.
If the file establishes ordinary litigation and a properly founded extension, that conclusion will be preserved. If it establishes a misleading procedural equivalence, a material omission or later use broader than what was decided, each link and actor will be traced separately.
CROSS-PROCEEDING INSTRUMENTALISATION
The flagship case now feeds a reciprocal-use test across the private, insolvency and judicial tracks.
Gil Marer alleges that private actors and successors, the insolvency administrator and later judicial acts have been used functionally as instruments for one another across proceedings: propositions and procedural effects generated in one lane may be adopted, invoked or operationalised in another. The linked bridge tests that allegation source-by-source and actor-by-actor. It does not treat functional reuse as proof of a common plan or criminal agreement.
Open the Montelanza/Molina ↔ Pink/AC/judicial instrumentalisation bridge →