In-laws may face legal action

Michael Andrews

Mar 21st 2009, 10:30

The in-laws were wrong in leasing the house in the first place and should have it taken off them immediately.Mrs Carabott has no legal right to the house neither... as far as i understand.... so what needs to be done is The joint office take back the house and give it to someone else who really needs it and for Stephanie to realise that nothing is ever handed to you on a plate.If she needs a place then why not go to work and rent a place like thousands of other people do here in Malta.
I feel for her and i am truly sorry that she lost her husband but life goes on and you can not sit there feeling sorry for yourself and expect everything to be handed to you on a plate.

G Zammit

Mar 21st 2009, 10:22

Here here Mr James Formosa I totally agree.
Glad this has turned around on them. Thats what you get for being greedy!

James Formosa

Mar 20th 2009, 12:35

What is shocking is that the house belongs to the Joint Office and the people who leased it weren't living in it!! How many other properties are being leased to people who are not living in them and possibly even sub-leasing them?? I am sorry for the victim as she was conned -but the Joint Office should take the in-laws to court and then make a leasing contract with Stephania. That would be justice.

L..Galea

Mar 20th 2009, 08:43

Paul Barrett
The law is an ass and justice is blind (to the injustices it causes)

ceri whitley

Mar 20th 2009, 08:21

This is truely shocking to read.

I cannot believe, and in many ways I don't want to believe, that the Maltese could act this way to a poor woman who has lost her husband. To be kicked out of her home after a few months?

Is there someone in Malta who could set up a fund for this lonely woman? - if only 1 euro from the many kind people in Malta , this should get her enough money to help her through this awful time.

She might welcome an example of how people who believe in Gods greatness can show a little of Gods kindness.

victor vella

Mar 20th 2009, 07:40

I thank God that what I stated in the previous blog has happened,it isa fact that joint office property cannot be re leased to a third party,(mind you I do hope that many files are re opened) but to come to this case Now I hope that the courts of Law act with the same swiftness that they acted to evict the poor women.
Come on joint office speed things up , you have 79 days till D Day get your trousers on win the case and rent the house to the Lady living there.Let's show the world that we are Maltese.Meanwhile can someone with time on his/her hands start organising a fund for the women?NO POLITICIANS PLEASE keep this clean and unpolitical.And no MEP hopefulls on the bandwagon otherwise I am out of it. Can the Times help?

Paul Barrett

Mar 19th 2009, 16:06

@ N.Grima

What you have written is just the thing that would appear (in all humanity) to be totally discarded in this case and is exactly the path that I fear. It is a true case of "the law" as opposed to "Justice" which unfortunately seem to have little to do with each other.
It is a sad world we live in.

G. Duncan

Mar 19th 2009, 15:02

I pity Stephania, she has had enough hearthache to last her a lifetime. Isn't it enough that she lost her husband the way she did - leave her alone at least for the time being. What about her in-laws? Is this a way to deal with their grief? Come on guys have some pity. I would suggest the joint office to transfer the contract to Stephania and charge her what they think is due and leave her living there with the memories of her beloved husband. may God be with you dear.

N.Grima

Mar 19th 2009, 13:05

The eviction argument you are putting up is wrong - you are evicted by the person leasing to you not the owner, even if subletting is not allowed. Mr&Ms Carabott have a fault on that they did not do the necessary background checks on the property... that is if they really did not know the property was of the Joint Office. I'm talking law-wise here... While kicking out a daughter-in-law is plain squalid, if the parents were not living in the Joint Office's property it means that they were living elsewhere, hence they did not need that property. Sure, Mr&Ms Carabott may have invested €50k on the property, but only because they were not paying a loan or a market-rate rent! That figure barely buys a semi-basement... The way to go here is: (1) Ms Carabott selling off the fixtures & fittings (unfortunately); (2) the Joint Office reclaiming the property under breach of contract; (3) Ms Carabott and/or the Joint Office suing for (civil) damages on fraud; (4) Ms Carabott using proceeds of (1) and (3) to rent a new place. Still a huge change of lifestyle but at least she does not end up homeless and broke. //N

Mark Mealclaff

Mar 19th 2009, 12:25

I'm not an Expert..But if the House was leased to Joseph Carabot who then lets someone else use it. Then as I see it , it's up to the owners of the house to evect not Joseph Carabot.

Surely Stephania has some rights in Law...By virtue of living in the house for so long and she should have some rights as a Potential Homeless Vulnerable person.

Olina Tretyak

Mar 19th 2009, 12:18

I do not think that Joint Office has to open a court case. Joint Office may terminate contract with Joseph without Court involvement. If Joseph will not agree with decission of Joint Office, then Joseph may apply to Court asking Court to make Joint Office to return property to him back.

Paul Barrett

Mar 19th 2009, 10:39

I totally agree with Mr/Mrs/Ms L Galea.
If this is still Joint Office Property, the eviction (or not) of the occupant is a matter for them, not the "in-laws".
This case is one that needs to be dealt with immediately at the very highest level, at no cost to the widow and very "fast tracked", not tied up in rhetoric, spiteful, inhuman legal, political or bureaucratic delaying tactics.
For whoever has the power to sort this out: ACTION THIS DAY (i.e., NOW).

Nick Borg

Mar 19th 2009, 10:30

I am sure there is more to it than what has been summarised in the news, however if the lessee is bound by his lease to live in the place and he is in breach, equity indicates that Joseph Carabott should lose the lease and Stephania Carabott should have the right to take it on. Joseph Carabott, apart from coming across as singularly calculating and cold hearted seems to be trying to profit off his son's death and off the misery of his daughter in law by taking back something he would never have done if his son had still been alive, presumably because of the renovation works allegedly carried out.

I hope the Joint office manages to remedy the situation in the interests of fairness...although I am not going to be holding my breath!

L..Galea

Mar 19th 2009, 09:53

Joseph Carabott and his sister Dolores should be evicted and the property allocated to Stephania.
This would serve them right for the insensitivity and treatment they meted out to his daughter-in-law just three weeks after her husband died in the tragedy.