AN INJUSTICE IN MENORCA

A BAD PLACE TO INVEST YOUR MONEY ?

 

There has been a great deal of rumour and un-informed talk over the last nine years since 1996 concerning what happened to the second-hand furniture store and used cars sales room which were situated along the main Mahon - San Luis road next to the municipal horse racing hippodrome and aero-club road entrance.
The building was constructed by DAVID COX, a fact not widely known. The owners of the land would have it said that it was always theirs and that Mr Cox only rented the property. That is false.
He constructed ithe building with funds from his partner and from his garden landscaping business between 1975 and July 1976. It opened as a garden centre in October 1976.
The oil crisis and the serious illness of his partner were the two major factors in causing the closure of this business in 1978. At this point an offer was made to the landlord to purchase the land which he refused on the grounds that his eledest daughter disagreed with the sale of any of their land to foreigners. Not only was this against the law, but their obligation was to give first refusal to their tenants if, and when the property came on the market. The contract for the land rental was for an initial 15 years, but was extended to 30 years by his partner while Mr Cox was in England for serious treatment to his eyes at Moorfields Hospital. Mr Cox never put his signature to the extended lease agreement. He assumed that his partnerr signature would suffice. He was wrong, but his rights remained the same on the first contract.

Very unfortunately Mr Cox s partner became ill with leukaemia and after several years of brave battle, died in 1990.
The landlord took full advantage of David s partner s illness. He began to refuse the rental which was an annual payment. This was then deposited with the local court .
He sent two notaries to the premises with demands for the " squatters " to leave immediately. All these claims and charges had to be answered correctly because in Spain you are the loser unless you defend yourself. Guilty until proven otherwise - not at all like England despite Spanish membership of the wider European Community.
David Cox had to employ lawyers for this purpose. They were not on his side, but he did not know this until much later.
Eventually, the matter came to court.
The land-owner made a declaration, under oath, that he had no comercial relationship with David Cox , nor in fact, did he even know him. He asked the court to throw Mr Cox off his land which he had rented to another man, ( David s partner, now dead ). Obviously he thought that any trace of the 15 year lease had been destroyed and that he was on safe ground to evict his surviving tenant who had not signed the extension document therefore , supposedly having no originals of the shorter lease, would have conceivably been a squatter. But his calculations had gone badly wrong. David Cox still had in his possession the original of the contract which they had all three signed for the initial 15 year period.
He presented this document, written in the landlord s own hand-writing to the judge.
There was much coughing and embarrassment while the judge pondered over the contract. The landlord s solicitor paced around the room, angry and red-faced.
At last the judge asked the landlord if he recognised the writing as his own. There was a mumbled " yes ". Then the judge asked if the Mr Cox mentioned as one of the contractual parties was the same Mr Cox now standing in the court room. Once again a muffled " yes ".
The judge made a few notes and then dismissed the case. He stood up and left the room.
Mr Cox asked his soliciter, Jose Segui Diaz, what to do now. Nothing was the reply.
What about all the costs and damages? Down to Mr Cox to pay his own costs and no sancion for the perjury at all. Remember this is Menorca.

By not denouncing the perjury, which should have been the immediate action, the door was left conveniently open for another action to be brought against David Cox for eviction. This time on different grounds.
This should never have been allowed to proceed, but it did. The same court, the same judge and the same lawyers.

 

In early 1992 a second summons was sent to Mr Cox and also to his deceased partner to attend yet another hearing to attempt to evict them from the land on which their building stood. This time  Mr Cox was not accompanied by his solicitor, Sr Segui Diaz, who made an excuse not to attend, leaving his client alone to face the questioning by the court secretary without the presence of a judge.

Mr Cox was not told that he had the right of first refusal to buy the rented land if it were to be offered for sale and the automatic right of renewal was also ignored. The solicitor being absent was a tactic which probably meant that Mr Cox said things unadvised which could have lead to losing his case. 

 

Seven months elapsed before the sentence arrived handing the building over to the Menorcan landlord with no compensation for the tenants.

There was no mention of tenants rights to buy the land. The solicitor acting for Mr Cox advised his client that there was no appeal in " this category of minor case " and so when the sentence arrived from Palma, Mr Cox was shocked to see that the sentence was the result of an appeal which, not only had he not been told about, but had not been attended by his solicitor, therefore automatically losing the building to the landlord and his family.

 

Some time passed before a date was set for the eviction. Mr Cox had no money left to fight, but remained in his premises trying to work against impossible odds, having had all bank facilities cut-off and no staff.

The eviction took place on 26th November 1996. The procedure was very badly faulted.

Mr Cox was not present due to warnings to stay away by his doctor lest he should suffer a heart attack due to extremely high, stress related glucose levels.

The officials of the court arrived, together with the Policia Nacional and the landlords solicitor,Sr Castells.

The contents of the shop were partially moved into the car park, seen in the photographs, and a systematic looting took place.

No inventory was taken  -  a statuary requirement in all evictions. A gross negligence on the part of the Court which lead to criminal activity.

The locks were changed by a carpenter and the keys simply handed to the landlord.

Within 72 hours all the stock and contents of the premises had been removed by lorries and private vehicles.

Under normal procedures an inventory is taken  -  a complete inventory, and then a person is appointed to ensure that the contents of an evicted premises or dwelling are returned to their rightful owners on producing proof of ownership.

None of these procedures were followed and the premises was looted.

Mr Cox went to the Court to find out where all the contents had gone  - still under the impression that correct procedures had been followed. All he got was " Dont know " and shrugging of shoulders. He denounced the procedure to the police who reluctantly took the complaint.

In order to cover up the negligence, and behind his back, the police accused Mr Cox of taking all his own property and the witness to this act was the landlord himself.

Mr Cox was never told and the case was filed immediately as a closed matter. Considering that the initial excuse for not having made an inventory was that the shop was empty, it seems strange that Mr Cox was later seen taking away so much stock from a locked building to which he had no access.

When an injunction was placed by Mr Cox a year later, the landlord, his employee and some of the transport firms were asked to make new satements to the police.

They all denied ever making previous statements and in some cases, ever having been on the site, despite the photographs taken by the local paper.

Their statements, filed in the Court, were not there - seemingly lost or never made.

A disgusting affair of cover-up.

Thousands of Euros of stock disappeared and Mr Cox was subsequently demonised as the wrong-doer and not the victim of an unpleasant closed circle of quasi-masonic local people with financial interests in the site and construction.

Totally disillusioned by the justice system, Mr Cox continyed to persue the matter in an attempt to obtain justice. Eventually the matter reached the office cof the Spanish Ombudsman who indicated that, indeed, an error in the justice system had occurred.

A lawyer from outside Menorca was recommended due to the nature of the case.

 

Ironically, the building and land during the course of the past nine years, have been reclassified under the new Territorial land use plan for Menorca as rustic. No-one can build any more on the site and no permissions for any business will be granted  -  except to Mr Cox who can re-apply for permission for the SAME BUSINESS and nothing else.

 

The case still continues for compensation now with a strong firm of honest lawyers in Madrid.

 

Along the way Mr Cox has been dogged by a certain amount of intimidation  -  anonymous telephone calls threatening the safety of his elderly parents, his lawyers were intimidated leading to three resignations, plus demonization and character assasination to try and force him to leave the island.

The latest episode has been that of an English Barrister who vowed to see justice done for Mr Cox.

Married to a local girl whose brother is a lawyer, he soon changed his tune and was unable to continue after writing only one letter to the landlords family. Very sudden.

 

The landlords are now 5 people who inherited the plot from the original owner who died in 1991. They are rich and powerful with many influential positions in local politics, legal system, administration and banking.

David Cox is a mere foreigner and without funds to employ good lawyers to defend his rights against this wall of power.

 

	The eviction day 21.11.96
Eviction Day - Furniture in the car park. According to the Court the shop was " empty ". What do you think ?	Store interior one week before the eviction. Empty ? A disgraceful negligence by the judiciary for not having taken an inventory which lead to criminal activity - looting.
The eviction showing judicial officials and lawyers amongst the non-existent furniture in the car park. Perhaps you can now understand why Mr David Cox was so angry. The police simply stood by and did nothing to prevent the looting.
	Image taken by the Diario Menorca 27th November 1996 showing the name of a transport firm on the side of the truck. The driver was interviewed by police in February 1997 and admitted to receiving payment from certain undisclosed persons for taking antique furniture to various private locations. His second statement made almost one year after when an injunction was issued claimed that he had never been on the site. A bag of worms. His first statement seemed to be non-existent. How odd.