A question for Maria re LEY 57/1968 General Guarantee to ensure the repayment of amounts paid on account – SUPREME COURT RULING

Ads:

Answers below in bold green ( same text as your email): 

Thank you, Maria and good luck.

Will this SC ruling against Caja Canaries, if successful and being the second of its kind (?) it will be first one, then establish doctrine in principle for all subsequent cases where proof of monies into developer accounts is provided (developer subsequently insolvent) and no individual BG or generic BG's were provided? A second one will be necessary. Will this confirm the principal that all receptor Banks under this circumstance will be liable for the return of monies/interest/costs? Yes, it will. Or will this SC ruling be just relevant to this specific Bank and developer? Relevant for any Bank/developer.

With regard to other lawsuits for those with generic BG's and no individual BGs where monies were deposited into developer accounts with other receptor Banks (developer now insolvent), will the following legal assumption still stand

"Once there is a General Bank Guarantee, liability is for them. Liabilities of receptor banks cease at that precise point"

Yes, it still stands.

 Is there any SC doctrine currently in place to sufficiently support this legal argument to act as a clarification to the judiciary? Not yet. But on a positive argumentation, there is specific Case Law by the Supreme Court on the liability of General Guarantors despite the not existence of individual guarantees.  If not are there any relevant SC appeals in the pipeline to assist in this regard? There must be more coming, I am sure

Dear Maria,

Much of the questions mention the developer and/or insurance company.  My deposit was paid, by myself, directly to the bank.  Does this make any difference?  I've read somewhere that, according to Spanish law, the bank must keep this money safe until the property is completed and the purchase is finalised.  If this is true why are the courts not able to enforce repayment?

many thanks, once again, Maria,

best regards,

John

ps  anyone else please feel free to add to this, thanks.

For those who wish to review details appertaining to Ley 57/68, Keith Rule produced an incredibly detailed petition (now closed) but it explains in great detail the law and all aspects relating to Banking and developer abuse that all too many have been subjected to during this last decade.

It beggars belief that all these years on we are all still fighting for our inalienable rights to be recognised in Spain given the detailed articles laid down in this law, a law intended to protect offplan purchasers, as the Banks continue their ploys to challenge every article of this law in such a piecemeal fashion as to ensure obstruction of timely justice.

Please see www.bankguaranteesinspain.com and click on the various links (eg petition text, ley57/68 in English, the shocking truth etc).

John123, please have answers below in bold green ( same text as your email):

Dear Maria,

Much of the questions mention the developer and/or insurance company.  My deposit was paid, by myself, directly to the bank.  Does this make any difference? Directly to developer´s account in a Bank I guess  I've read somewhere that, according to Spanish law, the bank must keep this money safe until the property is completed and the purchase is finalised. Or verified on the existence of the corresponding guarantees for the refund of deposit+interests if development were delayed.   If this is true why are the courts not able to enforce repayment? Many Appeal Courts are passing decisions on liabilities of receivers Banks and buyers are obtaining their refunds. Supreme Court as yet has not defined this liability and its clear consequences so there is still no Case Law on this.

many thanks, once again, Maria,

best regards,

John

ps  anyone else please feel free to add to this, thanks.

Dear Maria,

With regard to the imposition of costs and until such time as Supreme Court Doctrine has been established, can Barristers request in the interim lengthy periods that moral authority be taken into account within their legal arguments, given the compromising nature of the status quo and  claimants inability to retrospectively regain costs, especially when Banks are exploiting this uncomfortable reality with repetitious appeals in full knowledge that they may not be obliged to pay full costs?

Until SC doctrine is established in this regard why dont the judiciary at appeal level (for those claimants who have achieved successful rulings), consistently enforce upon the Banks their moral authority by awarding costs?

p.s. I noticed on a previous thread that Lucas Asociados implied in early October that "Banks who know the position of our SC and any litigation not made now under good faith, will have to pay legal costs." Does that infer that where only one SC ruling has been achieved against a Bank ( as opposed to two rulings) whose liablilities for return of monies will have been established in principal, that Banks under those similar circumstances should be made liable for return of interest AND costs thereafter and not have to wait for a second SC ruling?

This message was last edited by ads on 05/12/2015.

Dear Maria,

Many thanks, once more, for your much appreciated answers.

with best regards,

John