An action brought by nine people who are seeking the return of deposits they paid for apartments at a complex in the US city of Las Vegas has commenced before the High Court.
The nine 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 have brought an action against property agent Mr David Tracey trading as DTS International Property Services, Pembroke Road, Dublin 4.
They are seeking the return of deposits totalling €268,710 which they claim they paid 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 at 4400 South Jones Boulevard, Las Vegas, Nevada.
The claims are denied.
Opening the case Mr Mark Sanfey SC said that as part of the arrangement to buy the apartments it was agreed that DTS would be fully responsible for organising the necessary finance for the completion of the residential purchase agreements.
Counsel said that it was also agreed his clients would have no role other than the provision of required information to allow finance to be arranged.
Counsel said that between 75% and 80% of the purchase price for the properties was to be financed by a mortgage lender, and a deposit was to be paid.
Counsel said that it had been represented to his clients that they were entitled to have their deposits returned to them if a mortgage lender was not put in place within 30 days.
Counsel said that while up to four financiers requested information after the depositions no lender came on board, and his clients asked for their deposits to be returned.
In his defence Mr Tracey denied that it had been agreed that DTS was fully responsible for organising the necessary finance for the completion of the Residential Purchase Agreements.
It was also denied that they would have no role other than provide personal information needed to allow the finance to be arranged. It was claimed that it was the plaintiff's obligation to get the finance.
The defence also denied that the all deposits were fully refundable. In a counterclaim the defence said that the plaintiffs failed to use reasonable diligence to secure the necessary finance to complete the purchases.
The case before Ms Justice Mary Laffoy continues and is expected to last for four days.