Gvantsa Lomadze

Gvantsa Lomadze signs her emails "Lawyer", with a Batumi address, and writes from a Next Group address. She is the person who has stated Next's legal position to me, twice: by WhatsApp in February 2026 and by email in July. Between them she gave six grounds for my obligation to sign.

February

On February 4, 2026, a week after Saba Tsiskaradze sent the two contracts, I wrote to her proposing a plain service agreement, with a prescribed set of services at a prescribed price.

Her reply said that "under the Transfer Agreement concluded between you and the previous owner", all his obligations towards Next had passed to me; that I had bought "in a hotel-type complex", which is why the agreements "is required"; that Next is "required by applicable regulations to have such agreements in place with all unit owners"; that the documents were "standard", "previously agreed and signed by all owners", and did not limit my ownership rights.

I answered that, as far as I recalled, the only document I had signed with him was the standard transfer at City Hall, and asked for a copy of the one she meant, signed by me. She does not have it: it "should have signed between the two of you".

Then, "regardless of the form of the transfer agreement", the signature is "a mandatory condition applicable to all unit owners", an obligation that "arises from the nature and legal status of the complex itself". That message was edited; I do not believe I saw the original.

Asked what Next owed me for its own transgressions, she directed me to email, where my request "will be reviewed with the Chief Legal Officer". I sent it that morning. It has never been reviewed.

The next day I proposed paying for the services already billed against a receipt; she asked me to measure the apartment, I sent the titles and the measurements, and in March I paid GEL 2,170, with no contract. The chat ends there.

July

Her reply of July 7 to my request for documents, relayed by Saba, rests on a different agreement: no longer mine with the previous owner but "the Preliminary Sale and Purchase Agreement executed between the buyers and the Developer", under which "every purchaser undertook the obligation to execute the Management Agreement and the Common-Area Service Agreement upon registration of ownership". That is the sentence that explains the date on the management agreement.

Copies of the previous owner's agreements she declined as "confidential contractual documents". Asked to identify any registered encumbrance, she confirmed that none is registered against either title.

Asked for the legal provision that requires an owner to sign, she named none: the obligation is "directly connected with the operational model" of the complex and with "obligations undertaken by the Developer" before the authorities for "the management and operation of the complex as a touristic enterprise", the one time anyone at Next has used the correct term for a status that binds the developer.

Fees, she wrote, run from the date services were "factually commenced", independently of the building's commissioning, which has not happened; among the services listed is "operation of elevators through card access". The gas documentation she left to after-sales.

Since

My three insistences on the gas documents were addressed to her, and every letter from the demand of August 11 onward was copied to her. She has not written since July 7.

Ad-hoc legal theories

Six, in two statements: a transfer agreement she has not seen; a sale agreement she will not show; the complex's "hotel-type" nature, its "legal status", and the developer's undertakings as a "touristic enterprise", which are one thing, the status that binds the developer; and "applicable regulations" she never named. Her words of February, a week after Saba's and in the same terms, are why the demand of January is examined as the act of a group.