Legal tip 1330. NEW! LEY 57/1968 WON CASE in FIRST INSTANCE COURT AGAINST SGR & BBVA FOR HERRADA DEL TOLLO S.L. BUYER AT ‘RESIDENCIAL SANTA ANA DEL MONTE’
Thursday, October 8, 2015 @ 3:14 PM
LEY 57/1968 WON CASE in FIRST INSTANCE COURT AGAINST SGR & BBVA FOR HERRADA DEL TOLLO S.L. BUYER AT ‘RESIDENCIAL SANTA ANA DEL MONTE’
We were pleased to our client today that we had won their case against SGR & BBVA in the First Instance Court. The client did not receive an individual Guarantee from the developer, Herrada del Tollo S.L. or from the Bank, BBVA or from the General Guarantor of the development, SGR.
Re: YOUR CASE AGAINST SOCIEDAD DE GARANTÍA RECÍPROCA DE LA COMUNIDAD VALENCIANA (SGR) & BANCO BILBAO VIZCAYA ARGENTARIA S.A. (BBVA)
Please find attached Sentence number xxx/2015 from the First Instance Court No.6 in Orihuela.
Your case against SOCIEDAD DE GARANTÍA RECÍPROCA DE LA COMUNIDAD VALENCIANA & BANCO BILBAO VIZCAYA ARGENTARIA S.A. has been won.
The final paragraph of the First Instance Sentence delivered on 23 September 2015 and notified on 2 October 2015 states:
“Estimating the Lawsuit filed on behalf of XXXXXXX against SOCIEDAD DE GARANTÍA RECÍPROCA DE LA COMUNIDAD VALENCIANA & BANCO BILBAO VIZCAYA ARGENTARIA S.A. I condemn the defendants jointly & severally to pay to XXXXXXX the amount of XX,XXX Euro plus legal interest on X,XXX€ from 28 April 2006 & on XX,XXX€ from 16 August 2006 until the full repayment and impose the costs on the defendant”
So SOCIEDAD DE GARANTÍA RECÍPROCA DE LA COMUNIDAD VALENCIANA & BANCO BILBAO VIZCAYA ARGENTARIA S.A. are jointly & severally liable to refund the total amount of XX,XXX€ plus legal interest from the date each amount was paid to the developer’s bank account.
Particular points of interest stated by the Judge in the Sentence are:
“In the present case, although the plaintiffs do not have an individual guarantee for the amounts paid on account for the purchase of off-plan housing, this fact does not preclude them from being under the protection of the General Guarantee.
Regarding the exhaustion of the maximum risk amount of the General Guarantee, the Supreme Court Sentence of 19 July 2004 said that if the aim of the guarantor (if it was an insurer) was to impose on the buyers the consequences of disharmony or imbalance with LEY 57/1968 then this was inadmissible.
Applying the doctrine set forth above, the alleged exhaustion of the guarantee line cannot affect the consumer”
Valencia, East of Spain