The complete file.

A formal complaint concerning excavations carried out without the corresponding authorisation. Earthworks are precisely the category the developer's record sets aside as a separate process; these are the filings within that category.

Municipal closure orders issued in respect of works at the site. A closure order is a municipal act, not an allegation by a private party.

A 24-page petition seeking a declaration of absolute nullity of the same permit, on five independent grounds. Under Art. 173 LGAP any one ground, if established, is sufficient. The petition has not been decided, and the permit stands until it is. The petition was logged as trámite 6519-2026 and routed by the Alcaldía on 23 February 2026, under AM-0370-02-2026, to the Dirección de Planificación Urbana y Desarrollo and to legal advisory. The permit itself records CFIA project OC 1217432 and identifies the owner by corporate identity number 3-102-861529.

1 · Water — no AyA Dirección de Acueductos Rurales opinion in the file, required by Art. 117 Reglamento de Construcciones where a condominium relies on ASADA supply. 2 · Environment — 511 m² in an ecologically fragile zone requires a SETENA D1-C form under Decreto 43898-MINAE Art. 3(6); not in the file. 3 · Electricity — ICE no-availability certifications (oficios 1153-055-2021 and 1153-170-2024) appear at folio 039 of the permit's own administrative file. 4 · Trees — the Municipalidad's own use-of-soil certificate designates the finca forested and flags a MINAE felling permit; not in the file. 5 · Procedure — the June 2025 closure had never been lifted when the permit issued.

An open municipal file concerning the issuance of building permits at the site. Six permits were granted through a regularisation process — that is, after the fact, rather than in advance of the works they cover.

Each of the six was applied for before concession R-2133-2024-AGUAS-MINAE was granted for well CJ-135 in September 2024. The concession is the instrument on which the development's water supply is said to rest, and it did not exist as a granted right on the dates those applications were made.

The file has not been resolved. We do not assert that any of the six permits is invalid; we record that the Municipalidad has an open investigation into how they were issued, and that the sequence of dates is on the public record and can be checked.

Closure issued to six entities, including Condominio Mar Azul. No subsequent municipal act lifting it appears in the file. A closure order does not lapse on its own; it remains in effect until formally lifted. Closure seals were recorded as removed on 30 December 2025, a matter raised under Art. 319 of the Penal Code.

On 25 August 2026 the Dirección de Control Constructivo y Obras Públicas issued a construction-compliance notice in respect of 6 filiales.

An incidente de nulidad and a recurso de revocatoria with appeal in the subsidiary were filed against the notice. Filed with them was a complaint recording that eight administrative filings made to the Municipalidad during 2026 — 12443, 12445, 12446, 12447, 15069, 15071, 15073 and 17405 — remain unanswered, together with a report of new pipe works and an interruption of water supply within the condominium.

The issuing office copied the notice to the Ministerio Público.

The notice has not been resolved, and no finding has been made on it either way.

Permit PC-572-2025 records catastro G-3752-2025. The June 2025 closure oficio for the same property records catastro G-2043984-2018. The two do not match. The permit also names no finca number and identifies the owner only as a sociedad de responsabilidad limitada, without saying which one — content requirements under Art. 132 LGAP. We do not assert which plan is correct; we note that the record carries two, and that a buyer should establish which parcel the permit attaches to.

One of five legality actions filed to compel express resolution of pending petitions by the responsible authorities. This filing concerns the municipal enforcement matters, including the closure orders recorded above.

The Dirección de Aguas recorded that well CJ-135 was not operational — no pump and no electrical connection — on inspection, and again some six months later. The same records note that the development's own manager confirmed ASADA Santa Marta supplies the homes. This is a finding by the granting authority itself, not a contention by owners.

Legality action concerning the water supplied to the condominium and the basis on which it is provided.

Anchored on the same technical study the developer's record cites — GSD-UEN-GAR-2025-02417 (25 June 2025) — together with oficio GSD-UEN-GAR-2025-02538. A technical study describes; it does not authorise.

ARESEP is the regulator of public service tariffs. The question put to it is whether the arrangement under which water reaches the filiales, and the rate charged for it, rest on any authorisation.

Complaint concerning supply and billing. The service connection identified as NISE 2106726 is registered to a separate company, not to the condominium. ICE responded by oficio 1100-137-2026; a formal reply was filed on 7 July 2026.

On 17 August 2026 ICE issued oficio 1100-170-2026 in the supply-and-billing complaint. It records that the evidence gathered was insufficient to establish a breach, and cites constraints on access to the internal installations as a limitation on the verification carried out.

A recurso de revocatoria with appeal in the subsidiary was filed against that determination. The matter is not concluded.

What the oficio establishes and what it does not: it is not a finding that the billing is lawful, and it makes no finding about the registered holder of NISE 2106726. It records that ICE did not establish a breach on the material available to it, in an inspection its own text describes as constrained. Those are different things, and a buyer should read the oficio itself rather than a summary of it.

Legality action requiring ICE to resolve the pending complaint expressly.

Criminal complaint filed the day after utilities to certain filiales were disconnected on 26 February 2026. The matter is pending; no finding has been made and the parties are presumed innocent.

Environmental complaint recording confirmed transit of a puma (Puma concolor) across filiales 18, 20 and 21, and earthworks affecting its habitat and transit routes. Filed against the administration and developer as institutions; no natural person is named. A SINAC field inspection followed on 16 July 2026.

Confirmed ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) footage at two locations on the property. Both ocelot and puma are protected under Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre N° 7317 and Decreto Ejecutivo N° 40548-MINAE, and are listed on CITES Appendix I.

The underlying SETENA file behind approval 2514-2019, including the commitments and conditions attached to that approval.

Annulment action against the assembly of 25 February 2025. Sentencia N° 2025000185 of 23 October 2025 suspended those resolutions — including the budget and the amendment of Reglamento Article 6 (6.7 and 6.9) — and Medida Cautelar N° 2026000006 (13 January 2026) reinforced the suspension. Reaffirmed 15 July 2026 with an apercibimiento under Penal Code Article 314.

On 15 July 2026 the court rejected the defendant's nullity incident on two independent grounds. The precautionary measure remains to be decided.