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 1322.Recently WON Costaluz Lawyers cases against Banks for off-plan property purchases in Spain (Law 57/68).
Thursday, September 17, 2015 @ 2:13 PM

 

 

1. LEY 57/1968 BANK ACTION WON IN FIRST INSTANCE COURT AGAINST CAIXABANK S.A. FOR A CLIENT BUYING FROM MANILVA COSTA S.A. AT JARDINES DE MANILVA

2.   LEY 57/1968 BANK ACTION WON IN PROVINCIAL APPEAL COURT AGAINST BANCO MARE NOSTRUM (CAJA GRANADA) FOR A BUYER FROM PROMOCIONES INROAL AT ANDARAX IN TERQUE, ALMERÍA

3.   LEY 57/1968 BANK ACTION WON IN PROVINCIAL APPEAL COURT AGAINST SGR & BBVA FOR HDT BUYERS AT RESIDENCIAL SANTA ANA DEL MONTE IN JUMILLA

4.   LEY 57/1968 – BANK ACTION WON IN PROVINCIAL APPEAL COURT AGAINST CAJA RURAL CENTRAL FOR PROMOCIONES EUROHOUSE BUYERS AT FORTUNA GOLF RESORT & PUEBLO LA SAL (SAN PEDRO DEL PINATAR)

5.   LEY 57/1968 WON CASE AGAINST ZURICH INSURANCE PLC FOR A GROUP OF OFF-PLAN BUYERS FROM THE DEVELOPER INMOBILIARIA NADALSOL S.L. AT MEDINA GOLF RESIDENCIAL

6.   LEY 57/1968 BANK ACTION WON AGAINST BANCO POPULAR FOR MIRAFLORES BUYERS AT ‘VISTAS DEL LAGO’ DEVELOPMENT

7.   LEY 57/1968 BANK ACTION WON AGAINST BBVA FOR PROMOCIONES EUROHOUSE BUYERS ON RESIDENCIAL FORTUNA GOLF RESORT & APARTMENTOS TURISTICOS PUEBLO LA SAL

8.   LEY 57/1968 BANK ACTION WON AGAINST CAJA RURAL CENTRAL FOR PROMOCIONES EUROHOUSE BUYER ON RESIDENCIAL LOS BALCONES DEL VALLE

9.   LEY 57/1968 CASE WON IN PROVINCIAL APPEAL COURT AGAINST PROMAGA & UNICAJA

10.   New LEY 57/1968 BANK ACTION won against CAJAMAR, BANCO POPULAR & BANCO SABADELL in PENINSULA PROJECT MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT: RESIDENCIAL GRANADA GREEN

11.  NEW LEY 57/1968 BANK ACTION WON AGAINST BANCO DE VALENCIA (now CAIXABANK) at CORVERA GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB

12. Cases WON Against EUROHOUSE & respective BANKS

13. PROMOCIONES EUROHOUSE 2010 S.L. – LEY 57/1968 BANK ACTION WON AGAINST BANCO SABADELL (formerly BANCO CAM)

14 .PROMOCIONES EUROHOUSE 2010 S.L. – LEY 57/1968 BANK ACTION WON AGAINST CAJA RURAL CENTRAL FOR BUYERS AT FORTUNA GOLF RESORT & PUEBLO LA SAL (SAN PEDRO DEL PINATAR)

15.LEY 57/1968 BANK ACTION WON AGAINST BANCO POPULAR & LA RESERVA DE MARBELLA

16.LEY 57/1968 BANK ACTION WON AGAINST BARCLAYS BANK S.A AND SIERRA BLANCA

Email us if you want to know if you have an action

Manilva, Málaga, South eastern Spain

 

 

 



Like 0




5 Comments


Spanishpunter said:
Thursday, September 17, 2015 @ 3:55 PM

after all these decisions ,surely it is now time for the Bank of Spain to force the retail banks to settle all the outstanding claims without the buyers having to go to court
One can understand the Bank's defending their position originally but now that the Supreme Court is clearly deciding in favour of the buyers it is time to change that approach and for the banks to settle up!


broph said:
Thursday, September 17, 2015 @ 9:01 PM

Yes I totally agree and remain surprised that the immense tide of judgements against the banks still does not prevent banks from lodging further appeals. What more will it take for the legal system in Spain to smarten up the judicial process to 21st century timelines.
Regards



mariadecastro said:
Friday, September 18, 2015 @ 11:24 AM

I do agree with you in principle and in general but it is also true that not all these claims against Banks are technically correct when they are brought against them in Courts and also, every case is different. That is our experience.

We are waiting for an important decission from the Supreme Court in regards to those cases wherethere was not even a General Guarantoor. We are suing the Bank who received deposits in account.




mariadecastro said:
Friday, September 18, 2015 @ 11:24 AM

Cases above are just those recently won. We have a longer list.


ads said:
Friday, September 18, 2015 @ 1:20 PM

I also agree with Spanishpunter and Broph. It is ironic that Keith Rule's demand for a more specialised and consistent judicial fast track approach all those years ago appear to have been fully vindicated (although I take your point about technical correctness, Maria), in order to gain speedy and precise case law so as to better clarify and educate/assist those judges who have been "ambiguous with the interpretation of the law 57/68 for which many believe is really clear and protective with buyers-consumers". Every means to tackle this ambiguity of judicial interpretation appears hindered by abusive timeframes.





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