GALLERY OF AGRAVIOS File grievances .- HE
House Civil Appeals: xxxx
become legally established xxxxde street in Buenos Aires, (Area 168) study of our legal sponsor Lida Dr Carmen D'Arrigo, a lawyer T 347 ° 17 ° F in the file titled "xxxx" xxxx File Issue, to respectfully VE SAY:
I. PRELIMINARY.
PURPOSE. Use of the right that we remember the art. 246 and 250 of the Act Form, we come to express grievances, establishing resource filed a timely appeal against the decision-making dated 24 April 2007, requesting the revocation of the same, while rejecting the request for required third-party subpoena, who are registered as domain owners of the property of Calle Defensa xxxx City of Buenos Aires in the Land Registry property of the Federal Capital, whose eviction sought by the plaintiff in this lawsuit, those contained in the domain certificate submitted to cars that were current at the time of the filing and granting of this resource , while expressing the grievances caused by the rejection from the question of citation xxx, and xxxx, and others needed to have received the rent of the lease of the property listed, in your bank account, what was requested by these signatories, in the defense and opposition demand exceptions, and its subsequent reiterations .-. A photocopy
II
LIFTING. ORDER OF CERTIFICATION
That, pursuant to art. 250 seconds paragraph of CPCCN, we come to present a complete set photocopies of the bodies of the record of eviction (2), the subject of this resource, so that the same, or if the original - as it deems SS - along with the file grievances are sent to the House Hon Appeals Jurisdiction. That such request for certification of such copies .-
III TORT
Notwithstanding that in the context of this paper will argue about the wrongs caused to these appellants on interlocutory appeal, we made a list below the same methodology for purposes .-
a). These appellants' grievances, because the a-quo to justify their rejection of the subpoena requested, decision-making focuses on the importance attached in an exclusive manner to the roster of winners on the testimony contained in copy submitted by the plaintiff, a fs . 5 / 7, ignoring Certificates of Ownership, (pages 99 to 102 and 766) issued by the Registry of Deeds of the Federal Capital, which prove the diligence of Reports No. 1, submitted by the counsel for the appellants , which are public documents, with advertising value erga omnes .-
b) It is an affront to these appellants, the Judge did not consider that valid support, the order of citation to the homeowners made to achieve "perfection of the cause." -
c) offends this part, at the conclusion of a-quo considered to apply to the case, the principle of forced intervention of third parties is an exceptional measure and should it be construed to be restrictive. " What is not accurate.
d). The appellants' grievances because the a-quo conclusively deemed that the summons to the homeowners and those who are partners and daughter, respectively, of the plaintiff: xxx become adversaries of that, and that is sought to litigate in citation against it, imposing the applicants for their interest, a different integration of the litigation from which Naomi Usanna Coral engage.
it not being possible - the Judge says - unless "there is a corresponding legal interest to protect", so for the a-quo, does not apply in this case .-
SS grieves us that the citation of those listed as parties necessary to constitute "a mere point of contact" and would thereby become an obstacle (rampart) that prevents the request welcome .-
e) offends the consideration of these recurrent a-quo set out above - in both, is more than likely, these applicants are those who have to litigate against those, since they would become parties to the process, and eventually form an active joint litigation with the plaintiff, having a legal interest on the property being present .-. BASICS III
grievances.
Condominium owners are party to the eviction.
a) joinder necessary asset. Integration
The Grievance Procedure to dismiss the citation to the condominium owners registry, cause injury to these recurrent rejection of the summons of the condominium, as the plaintiffs, whose standing to act, is discussed, not to be among the registered owners, and not authorized , Office, administration, enjoyment. etc. granted by those, in both the present situation, to warrant the citation of those who have the legal condominium property, especially when the Judge before taking the opening providence of proof required to order the integration of the lawsuit, those who are entitled to sue or be sued, within which he must indicate, in abeyance while the development process.
This is because for the timely decision handed down in this eviction to be valid, must litis integrate real owners, who will be taken by., as the plaintiff, as the same a-quo holds in his recitals, presented to the good xxxx street, only a single copy of testimony in awarding of property issued in the condominium division Ussanna taken against his brother Juan Antonio and others, to be filed with the succession of his father, Hugo Antonio
Usanna (see fs. 5 to 7). Instruments that have not been proven or submitted to cars, and were never enrolled in the registry.
Furthermore we must account of the confession of the plaintiff, who fs. 694 recognizes the judge that no real estate. What other hand, is distorted to fs. 740 / 742, by presenting a certificate of ownership of a property on xxx, condo with his partner sued, xxxx.
In any case, the registration holder, would have received eventually bring this action. (Art. 89 of CPCCN) and not the plaintiff aware the lack of title and documents authorizing their favor, especially by the provisions of our Act Fund, Condominium. (Title VIII. From Book III. rights) .-
b) Third party intervention. The partner and daughter are part of the lawsuit. Grudges rejection of their subpoena.
On the Citation of xxxx, and xxxxx, it is compulsory and its intervention, become part of the process, because through their bank accounts to xxxx xxxxxxxx, realized for years, rents deposited by these appellants, amounts arising from deposit slips glossed to fs 103 to 180 of prsent wrought in original copy and reserved at Issue in Court .- xxxxx.
The situation of both you and your subpoena request is not a "mere point of contact", as stated in a. quo, resenting the rights of these appellants, but a real need to integrate the lawsuit as "parts of the trial.", in terms of art. 2nd of 90 subsection
CPCCN .- The above should be brought to litigation to extend the effects of res judicata to all those on the legal relationship in xxxxx.
This, in order:
a) protect the legal interest of those appellants.
b) Because the controversy is common, and the citation should be in terms of art. 339 of CPCCN.
c) In the legal opportunity provided in the Procedural Law is set to leave the rent was deposited in three accounts. (Art. 94 CPCCN) .-
d) Because a-quo's refusal violates our right to defend .-
a sign that the interests of the plaintiff and defendant (partner, condominium, and co-plaintiff) xxxx, are common is the fact that for an early eviction presented any fs. 740 to 747, as collateral they have real good condo in the town of xxxxx.
c) We are in litigation against a
as exceptional?, Narrow interpretation.?
The above are mere points of contact.?
The citation is coercive. There is clearly
in this case, a fraudulent scheme, between the plaintiff and his partner. The First does not live in the country, (hence proceeded to deposit $ 3,000 as root) does not know where you are because their homes vary according to the act: a fs. 1 Power provides xxxxx to counsel dated May 29, 2006; place is occupied by tenants and subtenants, to fs. 3 to mention your address, it refers to a cause, criminal appearance without specifying street or number, of the statements before the Second Precinct, made by these appellants, (FS 75 to 95) shows that xxxx has the same address the plaintiff: xxx Defence, which ultimately is not none, because the place is leased by other persons in the formal letter of fs. 9 the plaintiff establishes a street address xxxxx; in filing fixed demand D xxxx street again, and 13 fs expresses xxxxx lawyer who is based in Europe.
For its part the defendant xxxx is not placeable, as appears from the summons to xxxx xxx frustrated. evicting an address that does not live, as emerges from the report of Officer Notifier fs. 23 of July 14, 2006, and what happened to the lawyer xxxx, presented by art. 48 as a manager on your behalf to fs. 757; oppose the condominium subpoena of his client and her daughter xxx but having failed to obtain ratification represented by the letter and having expired on June 9, 2007, the deadline for ratification or filing of power, it must order the annulment of the act by the manager, as requested, without prejudice to other consequences on costs .-
On the other hand., xxxx, sued for eviction in this lawsuit, supported the request immediate eviction, real security posing as a title of great value, condominium xxxx fs. 740 to 746. This means that in addition to defendant agrees to participate as a plaintiff, along with the plaintiff, seeking to obtain immediate eviction .- .-
is noteworthy, that fs. 3 in section 2, the plaintiff refers to a branch that would have given Roland Hein, but was never accompanied by the eviction. Atento
expressed, we can say without fear of contradiction that in this case, the summons to the homeowners and xxxx, NOT A MEASURE exceptional and restrictive, because there is someone against whom the plaintiff must plead, without having chosen. But are their peers. .
is wrong is partly because the dogmatic expression of a-quo , Which relates and has no place in this case .-
The appellants operated, cause the citation RENTED unit owners, and members of the plaintiff to litigate in no doubt as adversaries, but with the ultimate aim of improving and integrate the procedural relationship
.- The a-quo decision-making should be revoked, because it undermines the principles of procedural economy, speed of decision and is likely to encourage wasteful unnecessary court, contributes to the existence of contradictory statements in a eventual return action .
For the hypothetical case of a dispute between the appellants against the registered ownership, or them against those, or among xxxx against this part, or is against them, should be dealt with a ruling that would declare that defenses must be filed in this trial resolved the question in a way that means a legal scandal. . The standard of art. 94 of CPCCN, allows the solution of common problems related to or through a single statement. Its foundation is the constitutional guarantee of legal defense. To
the unlikely event that the Superior, attests to the appeal decision-making, would have left out the nature and form of the summons provided for in art. 94 of CPCCN: which is coercive, because although the question does not respond to it will achieve the purposes of sentencing, as the subpoena has the effect, linking the trial and can not plead ignorance.
IV. JURISPRUDENCE.
"third party intervention is admissible at trial when, in the case of being defeated, is competent to bring an action back against the third party, or the relationship or status on which deals with the process, is linked to other legal relationship between the third and any of the original litigants, so that the third could have plunged original position of the co-parties plaintiff or the defendant.
(C. Nac. Civil "B" ED, 88-302). Its foundation lies in the need to avoid that the process concerns the claim down, the defendant can argue the exception of negligent defense - "exceptio processus mali" (C. Nac. Civ. "C" - "ED." 76-524. ) .-
"The purpose of the coercive intervention of the third is that the sentence to be rendered to produce, for him, the effects of res judicata, and therefore, you may be invoked against a possible further process ... "(A Juarez CNCIV Russim c / Riler. Rep ED 12-859, summary 8) .- It exposed
REQUIRED: Rest
expressed grievances that cause these appellants dated xxxxx interlocutory ruling that rejects subpoenas Street of condominium xxxx City of Buenos Aires, and those of xxxxx, members of the plaintiff for having earned vacation accrued from holding the property .-
For the reasons expressed and that will meet the high standard of SE; MAKING request the revocation of the question, decreeing is cited as a party to the persons mentioned, with the express imposition of costs .-
EVERYTHING IS JUSTICE
