PROPOSAL OF PURCHASE, PRELIMINARY CONTRACT, OR COMPROMISE?

It frequently happens that a client comes to my firm, only after having signed a proposal to purchase a property, without it being clear to him or her that the purchase proposal, once accepted by the seller, converts into a real preliminary contract, binding and with obligatory effects. The deposit is collected by the seller at the moment he accepts the proposal and communicates this to the buyer: the parties at that point are obliged to enter into the final contract of purchase and sale before the notary. I often hear people say, “lawyer, I just signed the proposal, but I want you to make sure the property is problem-free.”

If there are any checks or verifications that need to be made on the property we intend to buy, or if it becomes advisable to seek legal advice on any issues pertaining to the property, it is a good idea to do so before signing the purchase proposal. Alternatively, at the very least, it is a good idea to condition the effectiveness of the proposal on the successful outcome of the inspections to be carried out. For example: ideally, it would be possible to check the building regulations-urban conformity-the absence of easements or mortgages-and whatever else, before formulating and signing the proposal (and paying the deposit); however, it may happen that it is necessary to quickly “block” the property of interest to avoid losing the opportunity to purchase it.

In this case, the effectiveness of the proposal, in order for the buyer to be protected, must at least be conditioned, for example, by including in the pre-printed form provided by real estate agencies this sentence: The effectiveness of the preliminary contract of sale and purchase, which will be concluded in the event of acceptance of this proposal, is subject to the verification of the building and urban conformity of the property.”

Once the purchase proposal is accepted by the seller and the acceptance communicated to the buyer, the preliminary contract is thus concluded, and it must be registered with the Internal Revenue Service. The so-called “compromise” is nothing more than a new, more complete preliminary contract, which incorporates the contents of the purchase proposal, supplementing it with all those elements that presumably were not known at the time of the proposal.

It is not obligatory to draw up the preliminary contract, but it is advisable to do so, after having made all the necessary checks that could not be done before: building and urban planning regularity, absence of liens, mortgages, real rights of others, and any other verification that can assure the buyer the serenity of buying a property free of any problem. Buying a house is always a big step; all it takes is a few extra precautions to prevent it from becoming a leap into the void.

/0 Comments/by

REVERSIBILITY PENSION EVEN TO THE SEPARATE “WITH FAULT”

The Civil Court of Cassation, Labor Section, with sentence no. 2606 of February 2, 2018, established that the survivor’s pension must be recognized “also to the spouse separated through negligence or by charge, equated in all respects to the spouse (separated or not) and in favor of whom the legal presumption of living dependent of the worker at the time of death, fulfilling the support function previously indirectly ensured by the pension owned by the deceased spouse “.

Cass. civ. Section work, 2 February 2018, n. 2606
Following the sentence of the Constitutional Court n. 286 of 1987 which declared the constitutional illegitimacy of L. April 30, 1969, n. 153, article 24e of the L. 18 August 1962, n. 1357, article 23, paragraph 4 in the part in which they exclude from the payment of the survivor’s pension the spouse separated through negligence with final judgment – this pension must be recognized to the spouse separated through negligence or with debit, equated in every respect to the surviving spouse ( separated or not) and in favor of which the legal presumption of living on the part of the worker at the time of death operates.

 

/0 Comments/by

FREE TREATMENT FOR THE Alzheimer: HISTORICAL TURN IN CASSATION

Historic turning point for those who have a relative with Alzheimer’s disease. After the historic decision of the Supreme Court, the class action has already started. Families, who have found themselves alone to face the disease and who have paid almost two thousand euros a month for years to guarantee assistance to relatives with Alzheimer’s, are now asking to be compensated.

The Supreme Court, in fact, has established that the costs must be borne by the state. Consequently, the Lazio Region now risks having to reimburse thousands of citizens for the cost of hospitalization of the fees in the nursing homes. In agreeing with the daughter of an elder, the Civil Court of Rome sentenced the Region to compensate the woman for the expenses incurred during the period in which the father was hospitalized. According to the judges, the costs for the care of patients suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, in fact, must be entirely borne by the national health system, without burdening patients and family members. Alzheimer’s: almost 5 thousand requests for help in 17, half in Lombardy.

The decision

The decision of the Court is based on a Piazza Cavour ruling, which established the impossibility of distinguishing, in the case of Alzheimer’s, between “the shares of a health nature (paid by the Region) and those of a welfare nature (paid by patients ), given the close correlation, with a clear prevalence of the former “. Translated: the costs of the stay in RSA, in this case, are fully borne by the State. Alzheimer’s disease is the most common cause of dementia (it accounts for 60% of all cases).

Source: Italian Affairs

/0 Comments/by

DIVORCE: THE CASSATION EXPRESSED ON THE ALLOWANCE TO THE EX

Nell’udienza pubblica odierna delle Sezioni Unite di Corte di Cassazione, chiamate a pronunciarsi sul criterio per la determinazione dell’assegno di divorzio dopo la nota Sentenza Grilli, il Pg ha chiesto il “ritorno al tenore di vita“, sulla questione dell’assegno di divorzio dopo la Sentenza Grilli (n. 11504/2017) che aveva di fatto abbandonato il criterio del tenore di vita.

Secondo il nuovo pronunciamento occorrerà tornare a valutare anche il tenore di vita e non soltanto l’autosufficienza economica. Il Pg della Cassazione, Marcello Matera, sostiene infatti che il criterio del tenore di vita goduto durante il matrimonio va ancora preso a riferimento nelle cause di divorzio al fine di valutare il diritto del coniuge più debole a ricevere l’assegno di divorzio.

Le Sezioni Unite sono chiamate a decidere sull’accoglimento o meno del ricorso di una donna contro l’ex marito che in appello, dopo la sentenza Grilli aveva ottenuto la revoca dell’assegno di divorzio che corrispondeva mensilmente all’ex moglie.

Per la Corte di Cassazione, l’assegno di divorzio sarà dunque da valutare caso per caso:
“Ogni singolo giudizio richiede necessariamente la valutazione delle peculiarità del caso concreto perché l’adozione di un unico principio di giudizio – come quello stabilito dalla sentenza del 2017 – corre il rischio di favorire una sorta di giustizia di classe”. Questo quanto sottolineato da Matera nella sua requisitoria innanzi alla Suprema Corte. Può anche convenirsi, ha proseguito Matera, “sul fatto che il criterio dell’autosufficienza può essere preso come parametro di riferimento, ma non si può escludere di rapportarsi anche agli altri criteri stabiliti dalla legge quali la durata del matrimonio, l’apporto del coniuge al patrimonio familiare, il tenore di vita durante il matrimonio”.

Ora spetterà alle Sezioni Unite decidere se confermare il verdetto Grilli e mandare in pensione il tenore di vita o meno.

/0 Comments/by