Andorra la VellaThe lawyer of the Callaueta brothers who were evicted tried to stop this situation. His theory is that the man who had instigated the proceedings was not the real owner and therefore could not bring this action. The lawyer Emili Campos had already tried the first time, but was rejected. Then he used the replacement resource formula. He brought it up because he provided the will of the man’s father where it was established that it was the wife and mother who was listed as the usufructuary. In this line, Campos maintained that the woman was the only one legitimized for having pushed the process to expel the brothers, she would not have any type of legitimacy in order to urge the brothers to leave.
The Court rejected the appeal for reinstatement. The ruling considers that the arguments were the same as in the original case that had not been accepted. The fact that he provided physical proof of the will, which he had not done on the first occasion, was only one of the arguments by which the first legal action had been overturned. Therefore, the resolution continued to be in the same sense and the appeal for reinstatement was not accepted.
