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 861. NEW Court decission on Banks liabilities
Monday, December 3, 2012 @ 3:23 PM

Alicante Appeal Court  SAP A 2571/2012
Id Cendoj: 03014370082012100348

Dated September, 14th, 2012

A woman Judge again: so interesting!

Despite it was not the core of the appeal, the Judge Maria Cristina Trascasa, taking the chance to set the right application of provision 1.2 of Law 57/68 in accordance with Navarre High Court?


She says that in accordance with room 9 of Alicante Appeal Court, in its decision dated 25th of June 2010,  the main aim of Law 57/68 cannot be disregarded just due to the type of Bank account money was deposited in.

And mentions the Decision of the High Court of Justice in Navarre which says that the Saving Bank needs to require developer to place deposits in the special Bank account.

The lack of hygiene on the management of funds by developer and Bank can never be against the buyer which is trusting and advancing amounts off plan.

Alicante.

"Alicante", Comunidad Valenciana, East of Spain, by Jose-88, at flickr.com



Like 0




3 Comments


Rosemary said:
Monday, December 3, 2012 @ 6:57 PM

Does this mean that if the bank who received the deposit for the house in the initial stage is the same bank that the court has identified as holding an account of the developers with a court judgement to seize that amount , then they are duty bound by the law to pay this money back to the client.


Anne said:
Tuesday, December 4, 2012 @ 12:34 AM

Where does the Supreme Court stand on this Maria as there are several judges who increasingly appear to be forming differing opinions on so many aspects associated with Bank Guarantees, offplan purchase contracts, delays etc and the developer's and Bank's responsibilities in all of this?

Doesn't the law need clarification from the Supreme Court so that judicial rulings can no longer be open to misinterpretation of this law?

Don't clients continue to be at risk so long as this law and contract law are not consistently enforced by the judiciary?

At the moment it appears a lottery as to whether you "strike lucky" to receive a judicial ruling such as you describe above.

It's so unfair for those who fail in their search for justice due solely to misinterpretation of the law, and sadly this legal lottery will do little to regain consumer faith, unless these inconsistencies in judicial rulings are eradicated.


Maria said:
Tuesday, December 4, 2012 @ 12:10 PM

Rosemary: Yes, but you need to exercise the right before the Judge and the Judge agrees so, in order to obtain the refund from the depositing Bank.

Anne: Yes, Supreme Court has the mission of unification and creation of Case Law.


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