El blog de Maria

rjmderry said:
Wednesday, March 26, 2014 @ 4:14 PM

Maria, It is good that 48 appeal cases have gone against the banks but for the importance of balance how many have gone for the banks ?

If the majority (should really be all) have gone against the banks, why do they continue appeal ?

If they paid our money out quicker then we may consider to reinvest but making us jump through hoops does not inspire confidence.

Thank you for the posting though.

josey96 said:
Wednesday, March 26, 2014 @ 8:08 PM

Hi Maria, This is all great news but can you be a bit more specific with regards to this case?

Was the deposit paid on a property that was never built or was the property completed and an FOL granted?

Surely the time has to come when the Courts of the land make the decision that the Banks have to give back all of the monies paid where no bank guarantees were given to the purchaser.

Maybe then and like rjmderry highlights above that some of us might still invest in Spain, and possibly clear the stocks of housing which is costing the whole Spanish economy greatly.

mariadecastro said:
Thursday, March 27, 2014 @ 8:21 AM

rjmderry:

Very few that I know of are against Bank liabilities ( let´s day about 5) and in some cases, it is because lawsuit was not well directed/argumented.

I have same question in my head since 2-3 years ago. Why do not they settle so people can use that money for reinvesting? Clearly, financial forces are not in line with people´s reality, needs... yet! Much work to be done by Society in terms of demanding a person centered financial machine.

Josey96: There is a variety of situations. In some cases houses were not built, in other cases they were late. A good proposal for application of law 57/68 is essential in these cases

Yes, let´s keep faith up

Cheers and good thursday to you both

Maria

hosilverlining said:
Thursday, March 27, 2014 @ 1:27 PM

Thanks Maria, this is encouraging. I would be interested to know whether it is realistic in terms of legal costs for one person to take legal action to recover a deposit without a bank guarantee, or is this something which is only practical for a large group such as the group led by Keith Rule?

Thank you.

ads said:
Thursday, March 27, 2014 @ 1:44 PM

Maria,
I fear this whole scenario of property rights has far wider reaching implications on those member states that refuse to put their own house in order.

It's a sad but damning indictment of a real estate and Banking industry and a justice system who through their continuing failures to adhere to the rule of law (in its entirety), are now ironically placing an intolerable burden on economic growth and development.

When is the Justice system in Spain (appeal rulings, Supreme Court etc) going to recognise how failures to consistently adhere to this rule of law (a good law at that!), by not recognising purchasers' inalienable rights, directly impacts economic growth. This is due to the fact that there is a growing number of people who now perceive that Spain's failure to demonstrate moral authority in the form of consistent adherence to the rule of law, leaves them vulnerable to abuse.

I suspect therefore that only when this moral authority is demonstrated IN PRACTICE by strict adherence to Ley 57/68 in its entirety (rather than cherry picking this law) will this be resolved.

Thanks as ever for your continuing endeavours.

ads said:
Friday, March 28, 2014 @ 6:03 PM

Dear Maria,

Do you know if any reference was made in any of these successful rulings in respect of the Banks’ failure to make provision for secure Bank accounts for offplan deposits together with their failure to identify the specific details of where deposited monies were to be transferred, as per the requirements of Ley 57/68? Or have these rulings only made reference to non provision of individual BG’s?

Would this judicial ruling also apply to generic Bank claims where no individual BG’s had been provided?

If the judicial rulings made reference to non provision of secure accounts, would this act as future case law against all Banks who similarly failed to make secure provision?

I’m wondering why this failure of adherence to identify specific Banking details, as required by existing law, cannot be consistently applied against those Banks (either generic or otherwise) who funded offplan developments, for all those cases where the developer breached their contract, and purchaser’s inalienable rights to have their monies protected and returned in this way have been denied, irrespective of where monies were actually transferred?

Surely it is not the fault of the purchaser if monies were deposited in other accounts, when it is the responsibility of the Bank funding the offplan development to make these secure account details known from the outset so as to be included in the purchase contract, according to law?

Do these successful rulings mean that the Banks are solely responsible for this failure to make secure provision for deposited monies, or are the Bank and conveyancing lawyer jointly and severally responsible for identification of account details and inclusion in the contract?

I’d be very grateful if you could clarify this Maria.

Thank you.

mariadecastro said:
Wednesday, April 2, 2014 @ 2:37 PM

Ads: This rulings are about both types of Bank liabilities:

- When a line of guarantees exists but clients were not given an individual certificate of Guarantee

- When moneys were deposited in an specific account held by developer and no Guarantees exist

Lawyers liabilities can never be pursued jointly and severally to these ones.

Regards

Maria

ads said:
Tuesday, April 8, 2014 @ 2:42 PM

Thank you Maria.
If a line of guarantee exists (generic guarantee) without provision of individual certificate of guarantee, but for whatever reason monies were not transferred by the conveyancing lawyer into a specific account held by the developer, then can/should the liability be pursued jointly and severally to include lawyer’s liability?
Or is the generic guarantor wholly liable under this circumstance, irrespective of where monies were transferred?

mariadecastro said:
Wednesday, April 9, 2014 @ 11:04 AM

Ads:

Lawyers liability exists in that cases but needs to be pursued separatedly. Never jointly and severally as they are classifies in the legal order as differnt types of liabilities and therefore, different legal actions need to be used.

Many Courts are requesting proof of payments made into the developers Bank account for bringing liabilities against the General Guarantoor. It makes sense.

Kindest,

Maria