Bank punished again! Banco Popular in Arcos de la Frontera´Vistas del Lago : Miraflores Development

Legal tip 1324. NEW! ANOTHER WON CASE AGAINST BANCO POPULAR FOR MIRAFLORES DEVELOPMENT INVERSIONES BUYER AT THE ‘VISTAS DEL LAGO’ DEVELOPMENT 
24 September 2015 @ 12:44 
 

ANOTHER WON CASE AGAINST BANCO POPULAR FOR MIRAFLORES DEVELOPMENT INVERSIONES BUYER AT THE ‘VISTAS DEL LAGO’ DEVELOPMENT

We were pleased to notify another client today that we had won their case against Banco Popular.  The client did not receive an individual Guarantee from the developer, Miraflores Development Inversiones or from the Bank to which their off-plan deposit was paid, BANCO POPULAR (formerly BANCO DE ANDALUCIA).

Re: YOUR CASE AGAINST BANCO POPULAR ESPAÑOL S.A. 

Please find attached Sentence number xxx/2015 from the Provincial Appeal Court Section 8 in Cadiz.

I am very pleased to advise you that your Appeal has been upheld and the Sentence issued by the First Instance Court No.3 In Arcos de La Frontera has been reversed and your Lawsuit against BANCO POPULAR ESPAÑOL S.A. is now upheld.

The final paragraphs of the First Instance Sentence delivered on 11 November 2014 stated:

“I completely dismiss the Lawsuit filed on behalf of XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX against BANCO POPULAR ESPAÑOL S.A., absolving BANCO POPULAR ESPAÑOL S.A. of all claims made against it with the imposition of costs on the plaintiff”

The final paragraph of the Provincial Appeal Court Sentence delivered on 9 September 2015 states:

“That estimating the Appeal filed on behalf of XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX against the Sentence from the First Instance Court No. 3 of Arcos de La Frontera in Ordinary Trial number xx/2014, we therefore reverse that Sentence in FULL and estimate all claims in the Lawsuit and condemn BANCO POPULAR ESPAÑOL S.A. to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of xx,xxx Euro plus interest at the legal rate from the date of filing of the Lawsuit, without making any pronouncement in respect of the costs of this Appeal and without imposition of costs of the First Instance procedure”


So your Appeal has been upheld and the Provincial Appeal Court has ruled that BANCO POPULAR is condemned to pay you the sum of xx,xxx Euro plus legal interest from the date of filing of the Lawsuit, until full payment to the Court.

There was no pronouncement regarding the imposition of costs relating to the Provincial Court Appeal or for the First Instance Procedure, therefore each party will pay its own costs for both the First Instance & Appeal.

Interesting statements from the Provincial Appeal Court are:


“The failure of the developer to comply with its obligation to deposit the buyer’s funds in a special account does not exclude coverage of the guarantee provided by the bank.  It is a legal obligation imposed on the developer and this obligation to deposit the funds in a special account cannot be imposed on the buyer.  The effects of this violation cannot be transferred to the buyer who is granted by Law an inalienable right to obtain the refund of the amounts paid in advance in the event of termination of the sale for reasons attributable to the developer.

On the other hand, it has been proven that there exists a specific Line of Guarantees granted to the developer for the subsequent issue of individual guarantees in favour of the buyers.

For the Court it is entirely irrelevant that no individual guarantee has been issued to purchaser.  The obligation on the Bank stems directly from the policy guarantee with the developer and the failure of the Bank to require the developer to open the special account cannot relieve the Bank of this responsibility”

Dear Maria,  I see that the Judge has only allowed interest from the date of filing the lawsuit until full payment to the Court is received, in my case the bank has had my money since 2004, and obviously it will have made money from it, so why has the Judge not back dated it to when the money was paid in to the Bank ?
                   Also can you explain why each party has to pay their own costs, and what procedure do you have to ensure is in place, to prevent the judge from pronouncing this ?

 

Judge decissions on interests and costs in this type of cases vary from Court to Court.  These can be appealed.

Maria, does Ley 57/68 make reference to interest and costs and if so does case law exist for interest and costs?