An Orihuela Townhall Scandal

Margaret and Charlie,

I think that judicial doctrine is only achieved when the SC have issued 2 identical rulings so perhaps Banks are allowed to to continue appealing in the interim ( even though the likelihood of them winning is slim given one SC ruling has been achieved).

Perhaps Maria or Keith could confirm if this is a correct assumption.

The question then arises when SC doctrine is achieved, does the justice system prevent Banks from appealing, or can they still carry on appealing ad infinitum?

Doctrine is set with two Decissions by the Supreme Court.

Once Supreme Court has set a doctrine on a particular matter of law, right to appeal remains. Of course costs are very likely imposed on that part.

Our system is  not as much limited by Case Law than the Common Law System.

Thank you Maria.

IMHO, any justice system which places innocent citizens under growing financial pressures and stress in this manner, in order to continue defending their rights against obstructive Banks, WHO CONTINUE TO DISRESPECT SC DOCTRINE THAT HAS ALREADY CLARIFIED THE LAW in this regard, is immoral and surely in need of review is it not?

The financial penalties should be further magnified to act as adequate deterrent if they continue in this vein. 

Also is it correct to point out that Banks are not depositing monies into the courts as per successful rulings, until further enforcement action is issued? Are there adequate financial deterrents in place to ensure costs associated with these enforcement actions are able to be recouped from the Banks,?

Ads,

Through the interests charges and legal costs, the system punishes those appealing against what the Supreme Court has set as legal doctrine

To my knowledge, Banks are paying their condemnations with no need of further enforcement

Are condemnations inclusive of interest and costs of winning party included in your knowledge Maria

Dear Maria,

Please could you further clarify the following.

I thought after a successful ruling that a request for provisional execution of the sentence is issued which is a provisional enforcement of the sentence is it not? Is this the method to achieve provisional return of the principle amounts into the court?

Is the cost of this enforcement eventually recouped from the Bank and do the Bank ( once this has been approved by the judge which could take several months?) have a limited legal timeframe to deposit those principle amounts into the court? If so what is this timeframe?

Are these only the principle amounts deposited by the Bank into the court at this stage, and any awarded interest and costs, as per the successful ruling are later applied for, based upon  and up to the date that these principle monies were deposited into the court, or are they based upon and up to the date when the judge actually approves the interest and costs ( which again could be many months later)? Is this correct,?

Many thanks.

Sites like this should have the following warnings all over them for potential buyers in Spain:

Use a reccommended abogado from out of the immediate area.

Never hand over final payment without an Escritura and habitation cert.

Make sure you have proper bank guarantees for stage payments.