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 post 1213. NEW! 57/68 Won case against BANKIA in a Promilorci off plan development
Monday, October 6, 2014 @ 1:25 PM

Notification made by us to client today:
 
Your case against BANKIA S.A. has been won.
 
The final paragraph of the First Instance Sentence delivered on 1 October 2014 states: 
 
 
“I estimate the Lawsuit filed on behalf of Mr XXXXXX  XXXXXXXXX  and condemn BANKIA S.A. to give to the plaintiff the Guarantee securing the amounts paid to the account of Promilorci for the purchase of a property within one month.  In case of failure to comply with the above I sentence the defendant to pay the plaintiff the amount of 83,635.89 Euro and 2,000 Pounds Sterling plus legal interest according to LEY 57/1968 from the date of payment of the amounts, with legal costs imposed on the defendant”
 
 
So BANKIA S.A. is sentenced to provide you with the legally required Guarantee within ONE MONTH from the date of the Sentence.  If BANKIA S.A. fails to comply with the above, then it is sentenced to refund 83,635.89€ & £2,000 plus legal interest from the date you paid the amounts to the developer.
 
Costs of the First Instance proceedings are also imposed on BANKIA S.A.
 
BANKIA S.A. has 20 working days from the date of notification of the sentence, which was 2 October 2014, to comply with the Sentence or to file an Appeal.
 
Zaragoza, North eastern Spain, at facebook.com


Like 0




2 Comments


ads said:
Monday, October 6, 2014 @ 1:41 PM

Maria,

Although this sounds in principal good news, the Bank (if they don't appeal this verdict) will make provision of BG and then the client has to start again to enact their BG for return of monies from the developer, is this correct?

Why has the Bank not been made liable for return of these monies directly to the purchaser (with interest) with the opportunity for THEM to regain these monies from the developer, when it was the Bank that failed to adhere to Ley 57/68 with provision of BG/secure account from the outset, which compromised the client in the first place!

Why has the non adherence to Ley 57/68 and the principal of legal certainty by the Bank not been recognised by the judiciary?

Doesn't this strike at the heart of the problem of the judiciary not recognising the principal of legal certainty?

Presumably the client will be able to reclaim their first instance costs irrespective of Bank appeal, but this will take time and presumably involve yet another procedure, is this correct?

So the client is left awaiting monies once again and will have to find more monies to enact their BG claim against the developer. Could the developer then also appeal or would this be a different procedure?

If I have understood this correctly, this never ending circle of events only adds to the instance of compromising delays and the workload of the courts and fails to recognise the requirement on the part of Banks to strictly adhere to ley 57/68?

The question also remains what happens if the developer goes into administration in the interim?

Perhaps I have misunderstood (I hope so!).


antifreeze said:
Tuesday, October 7, 2014 @ 7:07 PM

What a merry go round these procedures are? The courts seem to perpetuate cases to keep the machine going - if everybody were to fight their cases, the courts would be so overwhelmed for tens of years.

Or some sensible decisions.... would that be too logical?


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