All EOS blogs All Spain blogs  Start your own blog Start your own blog 

El blog de Maria

Your daily Spanish Law reporter. Have it with a cafe con leche. www.costaluzlawyers.es

Legal tip 1332. NEW! WON CASE in PROVINCIAL APPEAL COURT AGAINST CAIXABANK FOR PROMOCIONES EUROHOUSE 2010 S.L. BUYERS AT ‘RESIDENCIAL FORTUNA GOLF RESORT’
Thursday, October 8, 2015 @ 3:38 PM

WON CASE in PROVINCIAL APPEAL COURT AGAINST CAIXABANK FOR PROMOCIONES EUROHOUSE 2010 S.L. BUYERS AT ‘RESIDENCIAL FORTUNA GOLF RESORT’

We were pleased to our clients today that we had won their case against Caixabank in the Provincial Appeal Court.  The clients did not receive an individual Guarantee from the developer, Promociones Eurohouse 2010 S.L. or from the Bank to which their off-plan deposit was paid, CAIXABANK (formerly LA CAIXA).


Re: YOUR CASE AGAINST CAIXABANK S.A.

Please find attached Sentence number XXX/15 from the Provincial Appeal Court of Alicante Section 9 in Elche.

I am very pleased to advise you that the Appeal filed by CAIXABANK has been dismissed and the Sentence issued by the First Instance Court No.4 in Orihuela has been confirmed in full.

The final paragraph of the First Instance Sentence delivered on 17 December 2014 and notified on 23 December 2014 stated:



“Partially estimating the Lawsuit filed on behalf of XXXXXX XXXXXXX and XXXXXXX XXXXXX & XXXXXXX XXXXXX against CAIXABANK S.A., and must condemn the defendant to the repayment of the amount of XX,XXX Euros, this amount to be paid to the claimants according to the second claim of the Lawsuit, plus legal interest from the date of payment to the developer until full payment.  No imposition of costs is made”

 


The final paragraph of the Provincial Appeal Court Sentence delivered on 18 September 2015 states:


“That dismissing the Appeal filed on behalf of CAIXABANK S.A. against the Sentence dated 17 December 2014 from the First Instance Court No. 4 of Orihuela in Ordinary Trial number XXXX/2012, we confirm that sentence in its entirety.  The costs of this appeal are imposed on the appellant”


So the Appeal filed by CAIXABANK has been dismissed and the First Instance Sentence has been upheld in full.

The Provincial Appeal Court Sentence quotes extensively from other recent Sentences issued by the Alicante Provincial Appeal Court in relation to the interpretation and application of LEY 57/1968 which it considers are entirely applicable to this case.

In conclusion the Provincial Appeal Court states:


“The doctrine expounded is applicable to the case discussed, as confirmed by the First Instance Court and accepted in this appeal, that regarding the type of income to the developer’s bank account the Director of the Office 4271 of Orihuela when speaking as a witness said that he did not know the amounts accepted into the developer’s account were for payments on account of the price of off-plan housing promoted by his client, as it was a normal current account and not a special account. 

However, the fact remains that he knew perfectly well in which type of business his commercial client was engaged (he said that they were selling 2000 homes a year, although he did not have a record of all the promotions) but did not give a satisfactory reason why large quantities paid for homes were held in the current account, but coming to recognize that in the end, it is normal that his client paid into the account the proceeds of their sales, although in his bank they have never opened special accounts in 16 years, because developers do not ask for such accounts.

It is evident that we have a special account, though not from the official title of such account, but from the origin and destination of the funds paid to that account.  The fact that neither the developer nor the bank was concerned about the legal obligation to issue individual guarantees, in no way can harm the consumer.

In short, the bank should not allow the opening of special accounts and making deposits in it without first making sure that the promoter has assumed a legal obligation to ensure the return of the amounts paid in advance, and if the Bank fails in this legal duty, it is liable for the losses caused to the buyers”

Orihuela, province of Alicante, Comunity of Valencia, East of Spain

 



Like 1




6 Comments


antifreeze said:
Saturday, October 10, 2015 @ 11:19 AM

Maria, does this mean that previous judgments in courts that have favoured developers and NOT consumers, can be challenged on the basis that deposits were taken but not adhered to in accordance with the law?

The developers have gone but the banks should now be help responsible for poor administration of monies handed to lawyers and developers?

Great if buyers did not physically receive any guarantees?


mariadecastro said:
Tuesday, October 13, 2015 @ 7:52 AM

Antifreeze:

Previous Court decisions can just be challenged if appeal deadline is still on.

A new action against Banks is possible if there is a previous one won against developer for contract cancellation and you have clear records of what Bank account money was deposited in.

Cheers

María


ads said:
Monday, October 19, 2015 @ 5:56 PM

Dear Maria,
With regard to this statement, “Previous Court decisions can just be challenged if appeal deadline is still on. “

Do we now have the potential scenario where a TIME CONSTRAINT IS APPLIED in favour of the Bank/developer ( i.e. a time constraint is now in place limiting the ability to appeal against a contra legem first instance ruling that failed to recognise existing law at the point of judicial ruling, but this was subsequently clarified by the SC during an abusively long period of time due to NO TIME CONSTRAINTS in place to effect speedy clarification of that said law) and no account is taken of how this unequal application of time constraints has compromised the innocent claimant being prevented from gaining cancellation of contract???? How can this unequal application of justice be lawful?

Have I misunderstood?



mariadecastro said:
Tuesday, October 20, 2015 @ 12:13 PM

Ads:
I cannot understand your question. Could you formulate it otherwise?

My apologies,

Kindest,

María


ads said:
Wednesday, October 21, 2015 @ 10:22 AM

Sorry to confuse you Maria.
I will try and tackle the question in a different way!

Could you please clarify if deadlines are now being applied to those who have not as yet submitted claims against the Banks, but who have failed to achieve cancellation of contract or return of monies from the developer due to failure by the authorities to administer time constraints to ensure timely justice/enforcement of their rights prior to developer insolvency?

Would this be deemed a form of unlawful inequality with regard to unequal administration of time constraints within the Spanish court and justice system (in favour of Banks/developers)?

Many thanks.



mariadecastro said:
Wednesday, October 21, 2015 @ 12:00 PM

Ann:

In cases where there is a pending trial, date which counts is date where the claimant first claimed out of court against developer. No worries.


Only registered users can comment on this blog post. Please Sign In or Register now.




 

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More information here. x