The High Court has ruled nine people are entitled to the return of deposits paid for apartments in Las Vegas.
Joanne Caldwell and Ryan O’Hara, Ridgewood Avenue, Swords; Fiona and Gary Malone, Woodlawn Park, Santry; Martin and Miriam O’Reilly, Glen Ellan Close, Swords; Kevin Dawe, Callystown Road, Clogherhead, Co Louth; Mark Foran, Ballydonnell, Baltray, Co Louth and John Foran, Howth Road, Clontarf had brought an action for the return of the deposits.
The case was against property agent David Tracey, trading as DTS International Property Services, Pembroke Road, Dublin. On its third day today, Ms Justice Mary Laffoy ruled all nine were entitled to return of deposits totalling €268,710.
The plaintiffs had paid deposits ranging from €27,000 to more than €55,000 as part of residential purchase agreements signed on dates between September and December 2006 for condominium apartments at a complex known as the Borgata Condominium on South Jones Boulevard, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Mark Sanfey SC, for the nine, argued the arrangement to buy the apartments provided for DTS to be fully responsible for organising the necessary finance for the completion of the residential purchase agreements. He said his clients would have no role other than providing information required for finance to be arranged.
It was also agreed between 75 per cent and 80 per cent of the purchase price for the properties was to be financed by a mortgage lender, and a deposit was to be paid, counsel said. It had also, he added, been represented to the plaintiffs they were entitled to have their deposits returned if a mortgage lender was not put in place within 30 days.
The court was told no lender came on board and, despite repeated demands between February and August 2007, the deposits were not returned.
In his defence, Mr Tracey denied it had been agreed DTS was fully responsible for organising the necessary finance for the completion of the Residential Purchase Agreements or that the plaintiffs they would have no role other than providing personal information needed to allow the finance to be arranged.
It was the plaintiffs’ obligation to get the finance, he said. The defence also denied the deposits were fully refundable and, in a counterclaim, pleaded the plaintiffs failed to use reasonable diligence to secure the necessary finance to complete the purchases.