Supreme Court

Hi Ads,

When you say, "These are classic examples of how the financial institutions are consistantly refusing to recognise their legal obligations, even when the law has been clarified"

Who can blame them when they appear to have the backing of the Judges who also do not recognise the law ??

Every case which is not 100% won, costs the buyers thousands of euros and another one to two years of misery ??.

Hi Belucky

I can totally relate to your frustration, but the way the legal system in Spain appears to have handled these challenges by the financial institutions was to inadvertently allow them the right to gain clarification of Ley 57/68 in a "piecemeal fashion".

 So many lessons to be learned from this episode of compromising legal wranglings, not least that such an important law in place to protect innocents subjected to indefensible failures to adequately administer  and secure deposited monies, let alone ethically honour inalienable rights should be clarified now as a whole, and not be subjected to yet more abusively lengthy piecemeal challenges that have the potential to undermine the rule of law, if justice and full accountability is ever to be achieved.

I just hope for everyone's sakes that the judiciary and Supreme Court can look upon this in the whole going forward and recognise the injustice of these financial institutions who failed to adhere to their legal obligations FROM THE OUTSET ( hence the need for interest  to be rightly backdated). 

In denial of their obligations they  have not only subjected innocent claimants to the most stressful of circumstance, they have also sadly done a grave disservice to the Spanish Justice system.

Hi Ads

I read with interest your posts and information which i am truly grateful for. I and many others struggle to make sense of Law 57/68 which was supposed to be made to protect us as individuals.  I have to say that for justice to be done once a case has been proven to be justified it should be across the board and everyone in that position should be paid back in full if this law is to be taken seriously, it may then worth the paper it was written on.

Thanks again

Chrissie1

This message was last edited by Chrissie1 on 17/12/2017.

Hi Ads,   

 The Banks simply "move the goal posts" ....when we took them to court because they were the guarantor for our complex, the Bank then stated to the Judge that they never received ALL of the deposits, (which I have been informed does not or should not make any difference)  so what does the judge do, he ignores that the Bank was the guarantor and orders the Bank to only pay back the deposits which it received. End result is that we only "Partially won the case" therefore no costs awarded ?? Also the Bank has now appealled and we haven't seen a penny yet ??   

Any idea if any buyers are losing at the SC? Also be interested to know how long things are taking for the SC to make decisions on the case.

Belucky

Did you provide proof from your original conveyancing lawyer that your deposits went into developer named accounts ? I thought Keith identified many years ago that it was always advisable to gain this level of proof ( demand this evidence from the conveyancing law firm) or is the suggestion that this level of evidence linked to the developer is no longer required?

Perhaps Maria  or Keith could clarify?

Hi Ads, 

We did not provide any proof.... in 2004 our original Spanish Lawyer (supplied by our UK Travel Agent)  was sent all the deposits, and he would pay them into Aifos accounts, at unknown banks, however we found that he turned out to be worse than useless, he was uncontactable by phone, and never answered our emails, he even incorporated in our Spanish Contract that we would only receive a Bank Guarantee once the "licence of work was obtained" therefore since this was never granted and our block of apartments were never built, we were never given a Bank Guarantee.

In 2008 we engaged another Spanish Lawyer firm who took Aifos to Court in 2009 and won, the details of our paid deposits  were never in question as Aifos pleaded guilty and agreed to return all of our deposits.( therefore acknowledging that they had received them ) Shortly after this Aifos went into liquidation and we were accepted on the Creditos List.

In 2013 we changed to our current Spanish Lawyers and our original conveyancing lawyer failed to acknowlege all the emails that were sent to him asking for our deposits banking details, therefore it was not until 2014 that our current lawyers were able ascertain the necessary bank information and in 2017 arranged our latest Court case. 

Yes it probably is advisable to gain this level of proof but how do you "demand this evidence from the conveyancing law firm" when he totally ignores all your requests ?

Belucky you asked how do you demand this information ....

I understood that by reporting the law firm/ lawyer to the Bar Association advising why you are seeking this information from them, and the fact that they were being obstructive in this regard ( do this via your existing law firm), that this action should be sufficient incentive for them to comply and provide the requested information! BUT, if this still results in continuing obstructive behaviour then you should be asking what action the Bar Association plan to do about this.

( Note also worthwhile backing this up with a copy of your own dated emails, to act as evidence.)

It’s time the Bar Associations and existing law firms were seen to be acting on these instances that significantly compromise innocent purchasers. I understood that in some cases this action has proved successful in obtaining the required information..... But it appears you now have the required link to developer accounts which begs the question why this was not recognised by the judge? 

Perhaps your existing lawyer could explain on what  specific grounds the Bank are continuing to appeal?

All the best in the year ahead Belucky.

This message was last edited by ads on 24/12/2017.

Just been informed today banks have appealed again after they lost the first appeal for costs,they have appealed to the SP court now,can anybody tell me approximately how long does this farce take now.

Tommy2

Do you know the specific grounds on which the Bank is now contesting the appeal ruling? If not then best to ask your lawyer for more details.

Re SC timings, I would have thought much depends upon how many appeals  have been submitted and are currently awaiting assessment to see if they meet admission criteria for cassation appeal. Then once admitted it can take many years depending on how many cases are stuck in a backlog awaiting SC rulings/ clarification. 

Perhaps your lawyer could advise you on this ... But all of this begs the question is there a transparent administrative mechanism in place to identify how many cases are currently awaiting SC admission assessment and how many are awaiting actual rulings.

If there is no such administrative mechanism in place then it would appear nigh on impossible to assess how long this will take other than to look to how long it's taken to achieve other SC rulings...but this appears a moving target and no doubt will be accentuated the more that the Banks continue to contest judicial appeal rulings.

Thanks ads,just emailed my solicitor asking that info you gave me.GM been very good up to now.

Hi Tommy2

We were told the same thing last year that bank had appealed the first appeal and it was going to SC. I believe it can take around 2 years to be heard. Ads is right, too many cases being allowed appeals hence the build up and long wait. We're with GM too.

Joyjo

Thanks joyjo just wondering why GM didn’t give us more info,all they said was need to send 100 Euro’s.for Madrid court.

no ressons why,so I’ve guessed the banks have appealed again.

Hi Ads

Thank you for your continuous help and suggestions.

Regards

Chrissie1

Hi Tommy2

We were told our case was going to SC and we had to send money to pay the court agent in Madrid court. So the agent has already been paid before there is even a date for the hearing!! Alrighr for some.

Joyjo

Joyjo,

Perhaps your lawyer could keep you advised of the procurator's role at this point in time and the sequence of events and suggested timeframes that follow acceptance of the Bank's appeal into the SC, to act as reassurance and transparency in this regard. 

It's frequently the "unknowns" in the litigation process, especially at this level, that can lead to misunderstandings and stress, so I hope you can gain some clarification.

I've often thought it would be of benefit if lawyers could produce a standardised list of the various stages of litigation ( a welcome pack if you will...) that  would act as an educative tool for clients, together with relevant timeframes ( updated as required and drawn from ongoing experience in any particular region) which would act as reassurance and save clients having to constantly request explanations. Win win in that regard.

Hi Ads

Could i ask you if you have a legal background or have had anything like this happen to you.

Chrissie1

No legal background but a genuine interest to gain greater transparency and comprehension of what has become a battle to make Banks fully accountable for their ongoing legal obligations with regard to Ley 57/68. 

 But in that process to try and equally comprehend how the Banks are able to "play the system of delays", delays to achieving SC doctrine and clarification upon which the judiciary depend. 

It appears that the piecemeal approach  to litigation is sadly compromising innocents and the justice system alike, as Banks have flooded the system with their appeals in the interim ....thus compromising the speed at which they can be made accountable. 

But now that doctrine has finally been achieved on rulings relating to return of principal monies ( deposits) after years of struggle, what we appear to be witnessing now is a repeat of this behaviour with regard to challenges to the interest element and costs, as yet again they challenge appeal ruling after appeal ruling, demanding further clarification at SC level. 

The consequence of which is to once again flood the justice system resulting in even more delays to gaining doctrine on which the judiciary can consistently rule for interest to be backdated to date of deposit, and upon which costs can be consistently awarded.

It's now become of grave concern that the knock on effects of lack of TIMELY SC clarification with regard to the WHOLE of this law,, including the award  of interest,  is not being recognised by the SC, as this is now compromising the rule of law, let alone making the Banks fully accountable for their failures to adequately safeguard innocent claimants monies from the outset of deposit as required by law.

This appears to have sadly become a catch 22 scenario where all claimants and the system of justice are being equally compromised.

Hi Ads,  Happy New Year, I can only apologise for my late response, but I have been tied up with the holidays and a dose of flu.

I can't explain why our lawyers did not go down the "Bar Association" route, however they did eventually obtain the necessary Bank Deposits details by making enquiries with the Aifos Judicial Administrators in 2014. They established that our complex was covered by three separate Banks for a total of 8 million euros, however over the years some Banks had amalgamated and some had ceased to exist. 

We ended up taking the main Guarantor Bank to court in 2017, however since the Bank only receieved approx. 80% of our deposits, the Judge ignored the fact that the Bank was  a Guarantor and responsible for ALL the deposits,  he decided that they should only pay us what they had received.   

Since we did not win 100% we were not awarded any costs and the Bank is now appealing so our lawyer requested the 80% sum of money to be paid to us whilst we await the outcome of the appeal, that was nearly a year ago and the Bank has failed to pay any money into the Court. 

This message was last edited by belucky358 on 23/01/2018.

You need to ask the reason why the monies have not been paid into the court Belucky..

 Re the judicial ruling, it might be worth asking also what did the judge base his interpretation on with regard to not acknowledging that all deposits should be covered by the Bank you were claiming against. Was this a generic Bank Guarantee? What were the specific reasons the judge provided in the ruling.