El Dorado Condominium lawsuit won by condominium owners after 7 years - pt2

This is a report of the final result of the lawsuits against the illegal assemblies of the Compound Condominium that was held in March, 2011

II.- What are the final resolutions from the first collegiate federal court in civil matters (which ends future decisions about this main arguments in the judgment, since the rest of the proceedings can not modify that which is resolved by this federal court)?
Three Amparo trials were promoted:
1.- The condominium owners of Condominial Unit 1, together promoted the Amparo 116/2017 Trial, which was favorable, granting them protection for the purpose of declaring the absolute nullity of the two aforementioned assemblies, since Inmobiliaria El Tepalo S.A. of C.V., was not the administrator with powers of Condominium Unit 1, Condominium El Dorado. Because this condominium unit is not present, both assemblies are null for lack of a quorum and consent of the Condominium Unit 1 owners.
The reason why the Amparo resolves that Inmobiliaria el Tepalo S.A. of C.V., does not have powers of representation of the Condominium Unit One of the El Dorado Condominium, to appear at the null assemblies of 2011, is because that administrator appointed himself when this company alone constituted the El Dorado Condominium in a deed dated July 27, 2007 , in terms of Article 1011 of the Civil Code for the State of Jalisco.
That article states that his appointment can not last more than one year, but also takes into account the nature of that first designation, which does not represent the will of the condominium owners to appoint an Administrator expressed in an Assembly, if not only the developer´s, who should be limited to caring for the condominium for one year.
The original administrator had the obligation to convene an assembly a year after his appointment, so that the condominium owners could designate a private administrator, who could represent them in the assemblies of the Compound Condominium, not the self-appointed developer, as has been established in statutes that allow the First Administrator to remain in his position until the person who replaced him was appointed.
Since the term exceeds one year, it goes against the aforementioned article 1011, and without applying the legislation that regulates the Commercial Companies (Ley General de Sociedades Mercantiles), since the condominium is not a commercial company and has its own special law — the Civil Code of the State of Jalisco, which is the law that applies to the case.
2.- Real Estate El Tepalo S.A. of C.V. promoted the Amparo Trial 117/2017, which was denied, and the federal authority resolved that they are not right in any of their reasoning used in the trial against the condominium owners and with those who claimed to maintain the validity of the illegal assemblies of the 2011 of the Compound Compound, which in the previous Amparo Trial resolves that they are null, among others an existence of favorable opinion of specific lines, uses and destinations.
3.- Sicom Blue, S.C., promoted the Amparo Trial 118/2017, which was denied, and the federal authority resolved that they are not right in any of their reasoning used in the trial against the condominium owners and with those who claimed to sustain the validity of the illegal assemblies of the 2011 Compound Condominium, which in the previous Amparo Trial was resolved as null.