El blog de Maria

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

Legal tip 1224. On how those promises of a Creditor´s meeting can fail
Friday, October 31, 2014 @ 12:23 PM

http://www.eyeonspain.com/blogs/costaluz/7471/legal-tip-805-law-5768-and-creditors-meeting-ii-eurohouse-case.aspx

Below an example of what it has already happened in Eurohouse creditor´s meeting: being liquidated at the end. NO refunds out of that way.

For that reason and mainly because Law 57/68 was created for off plan buyers to be specially protected, and not to have to suffer the burdens of mechanisms like this--creditor´s meetings!!--, for these reasons we never sign any creditors´ meeting agreement.

That is not a solution for our clients.

National Park of Monfragüe, Cáceres, Extremadura, Western Spain, at facebook.com

0 Like

Permalink

Spam post or Abuse? Please let us know

5 Comments

ads said:
Friday, October 31, 2014 @ 12:05 PM

Very wise Maria, well done.

Isn't it ironic that the Banks that take the lion's share, being preferential creditors, are the cause of these problems by not putting in place from the outset the requirements and procedures to fully safeguard depositors monies (as defined in Ley 57/68) in the event of developer breach.

mariadecastro said:
Friday, October 31, 2014 @ 12:10 PM

Yes, Ads. That is precisely why Law 57/68 exist. If the individual titles of guarantees had been in hands of buyers from day one... what a different reality we had today!

Need to add Ads, now that you say ironic, it is ironic as the fact that many conveyancers who did not obtain guarantees for their clients are now advertising themselves as the heroes of Law 57/68 new approached!

But... all is known under the sun!

ads said:
Friday, October 31, 2014 @ 12:19 PM

Agreed Maria!

antifreeze said:
Friday, October 31, 2014 @ 11:18 PM

We believed that with BGs, it was safe to purchase. We were told it was with the lawyer before the 2nd payment was made to the Developer, but we NEVER saw it.

In principle, it seemed safeguarded and protected; far from the truth - avoidance by all concerned and information withheld.

Was it the lawyer's duty to ensure it was in place as part of the transaction or the bank? The developer just said 'YES, it is in place...' but never seen.

How many others did not actually see their BGs when it seemed like an unimportant irritation to lawyers and developers when questioning them? To LIQUIDATE is an easy option leaving hundreds without funds and legal rights.

At the time, such very busy lawyers broke a basic code of duty and care to clients - working with developers and negligent in safe guarding the basic protection. Shame.

antifreeze said:
Friday, October 31, 2014 @ 11:41 PM

Amazingly, the same banks who did not give BGs, were hounding clients to complete with ridiculous unaffordable mortgage rates! They pressured clients to complete with mortgages on over inflated priced properties on unfinished developments, at high interest rates. Recipe for disaster for many.

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

Blog home page

Maria
Lawyer. Director of the Costaluz Lawyers team. Useful legal tips for an easy way in Spain. www.costaluzlawyers.es

Interesting links