Ley 57/68

Good day people, I am seeking a law firm that are taking instruction on 'no win, no fee' cases against bank deposits using law Ley56/68

I have found one that will take it on for 25% of anything returned. As im not sure if this deal is the going rate or not, I thought I'd ask here before I commit

Thanks in advance

Graham 

Not Spain I know but......

They seem to quote anything from 30% to 40%, have even heard of a 45% one here in the UK, looks like it's a case of something returned is better then nothing returned.

If I have understood correctly, all articles of Ley 57/68 should be adhered to according to the latest Supreme Court clarification/rulings, which as things stand now all judicial rulings should take the latest SC ruling into account and include legal interest backdated to the date monies were deposited and costs ( as acknowledged within the comments of Maria's blog http://www.eyeonspain.com/blogs/costaluz/15986/legal-tip-1374ley-57-1968-won-case-in-supreme-court-against-caja-insular-de-ahorros-de-canarias-now-bankia-and-developer-construcciones-luayra-sl-at-the-el-sobrao-development.aspx ).

So presumably the question to ask from your legal teams is does this latest SC ruling apply to your lawsuit in terms of recovery of monies, interest and costs, and if so are there other unrecoverable costs that should be identified from the outset?

If this is a wrong assumption, then hopefully Maria or Keith could further clarify?

ads - to paraphrase your question; should judges ensure we are awarded costs now after this 'new ruling'?  one thing i have learned from using this forum is that there are a lot of false claims, things being translated from spanish into english incorrectly and simple misunderstandings of what the courts say.  so should we expect the banks to pay our legal costs based on this ' solid ruling by the supreme court'?  i would say 'don't get your hopes up as most likely it won't be that straighforward'.

i have asked my solicitor to advise me if we can take BBVA bank to the supreme court for costs, as the appeal court in alicante over-ruled the first instance court over my legal costs, which i will now have to pay.  i don't want the bank to get away with this.  still waiting to hear from my solicitor.

the appeal court ordered the bank to repay my deposit and legal interest from the date i paid the deposit - but not all of it! there is an 'anomaly' here though as i paid the deposit in two stages - 1.  euros 3000 by credit card/debit card direct to BBVA in Dec 2005. 2. euros 60000 by bank transfer from my spanish bank [not BBVA] to BBVA in Jan 2006.  at the first instance hearing the judge told the bank to repay both of those payments, yet at the appeal hearing the judge ruled that as I couldn't prove that I paid the euros 3000 the bank didn't have to repay that!  and yes i did have written proof that i made a payment of euros 3000 to BBVA!  i am also waiting for my solicitor to advise me on this. are BBVA that spiteful they resort to this kind of nastiness [in my opinion]?  they know full well that i paid that euros 3000.  the contract also states my deposit is euros 63000 and it was confirmed that it had been paid in full.

Yes it does appear that depending on the region, court, judge, etc that there are still major concerns re inconsistency in judicial interpretation within the Spanish Justice system, which some may argue may relate to how the lawsuit has been presented and defended, others may suggest that judges where Banks' Head Offices reside may play a part in influencing decision making, others may suggest that major delays due to lack of resources and/or lack of judicial specialised knowledge with regard to the latest SC clarification of law play their part, etc etc.

But this is all the more reason why its imperative to bring to the attention of the EU and relevant Spanish Authorities the requirement for adequate monitoring to ensure that Spain adheres to internationally accepted standards with regard to the Rule of Law (apologies for repeating this)

1. The government and its officials and agents as well as individuals and private entities are accountable under the law.
2. The laws are clear, publicized, stable, and just; are applied evenly; and protect fundamental rights, including the security of persons and property and certain core human rights.
3. The process by which the laws are enacted, administered, and enforced is accessible, fair, and efficient.
4. Justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and independent representatives and neutrals who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities they serve.

Only when the legal teams defending clients make their genuine concerns fully known, in terms of transparency re contra legem rulings/ non compliance with SC rulings, major compromising delays that have impacted Ley 57/68 being enforced in a fair consistent and efficient manner which in turn have impacted timely SC clarification of law, and Banks non compliance with ethical standards/behaviour, etc, will we ever know the overall picture.

But in the interim period we can only ask of our legal representatives to ensure that all "fully analysed instances" re judicial inconsistencies and/or patterns of compromising behaviour by the Banks, Courts or judiciary, plus abusive delays, and issues relating to "legal certainty" (inalienable rights) are consistently reported back for monitoring purposes. How else can we ever ensure that adequate resources be made available and the rule of law be fully recognised in Spain?

I live in hope!

This message was last edited by ads on 18/04/2016.

ads - when you list all those obstacles it's wonder we get anything back!!   we really are at the mercy of a system in which have little understanding and hardly any influence [nor, it sometimes seems, are we afforded a voice].  our hands are tied and we have to 'blindly' entrust our spanish legal team.  i think my solicitor has done really well for me to be honest.  i've got my deposit back [which was, initially, my sole objective][apart from that euros 3000],  then legal interest was mentioned on here , and i wanted that too, which i got.  i am disappointed that the appeal judge over-turned the first ruling and that will cost me perhaps, euros 6000. but overall i am happy with what i get.  the legal interest will more than cover the legal costs and with a much more agreeable euro to sterling exchange rate i should have some financial 'compensation' for ten years of stess.

There is extensive and particular case law on Banks liabilities now so action is quite safe if facts are the necessary ones

Milestones achieved over the years regarding LEY 57/1968:
 

- Banks must cover all the amounts paid, not only those covered by an Individual Guarantee
 

- The Guarantees do not expire until the First Occupation Licence is issued

- The existence of a line of guarantees or contract of insurance guarantee between the Bank and the promoter and proof of payments made by the purchaser as provided in the contract, gives rights against guarantors
 

- Despite having acceded to the agreement of bankruptcy of the developer, the rights against the guarantor or the receiving bank are not extinguished
 

- Even if the bank account is not named by the Bank as a ‘Special Account’ it will be treated as ‘Special’ according to the Law due to the source and destination of the funds deposited therein
 

- The obligation to secure the off-plan deposits is a fundamental requirement of the banks derived from the Law
 

- Actions against a developer’s bank expire after 15 years

- Interest is payable from the delivery of amounts and not from the filing of the Lawsuit

Excellent Maria. Thank you.

What is the latest doctrine re recovery of costs?

Supreme Court does not issue doctrine on Costs as this matter is regulated by a Procedural Act

Thank you Maria.

Would it be possible to clarify in brief what this procedural act stipulates please?

How would you then appeal against any non awarding of costs if you felt there had been an injustice i.e. the ruling had not acted in accordance with the Procedural Act?

Many thanks.

Ads:

Judicial costs are regulated in Articles 394-398 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Principle of defeating: Costs will be imposed on the party which has been rejected all claims, unless the Court appreciates, with enough legal foundation, that the alleged claim is doubtful under either  fact or law basis. Case Law needs to be included necessarily as part of the fundaments.

In the event that the admission or dismissal of the claims is partial, each party must pay the costs  it has caused and common costs will be paid by half, unless the court appreciates that any of them has litigated recklessness.

There is a restriction on the payment of fees to lawyers and professionals who are not subject to tariff , so that the total  costs amount cannot exceed one third of the amount of the process by each one of the  litigants who receives such a pronouncement, unless the Court declares the recklessness of the litigant ordered to pay costs, in which case there should be no such limitation.

Dismissal of all claims included in an  appeal will  lead necessarily and in accordance with Article 398 of the Civil Procedure Act,  to the imposition of  costs to the applicant.  If estimation is partial, costs will not be imposed to any of the litigants.  With the always applicable exception of the case presenting serious questions of fact or law.

I am also looking for a no win no fee lawyer. The problem I've got is I gave a deposit of 10k to one bank and 10k to another. It is going to cost me up to 9k (if went to appeal) to go to court and another 6k or more of what I get back.

Maria has mentioned tariff based lawyers. 

Are you not better off asking for a price / fee from such a lawyer and then considering the possibility of having costs awarded back to you?    

I think the price I was quoted was to take one of the banks to court to ask for the whole of the 20k deposit. Court costs look to be hit and miss at the moment and I have read that if the court only awarded part of the money back, they would then make the two parties pay their own costs. To take both banks to court separately would cost me more than I would get back.

The Banks must be loving this. Where is the disincentive and judicial moral authority in this equation?

It appears completely unethical that if Banks are ruled against as they  continue to submit appeals as STANDARDISED practice (even though SC rulings have clarified law in favour of innocent claimants) that this is not recognised by the judiciary in their awarding of costs (and correct interest backdated to date monies were deposited)?

This would surely act as incentive for Banks to continue with their manipulative ploys, which ironically will result in an additional burden on the already overstretched justice system?

Isn't it time that the judiciary stamped their moral authority on this abusive behaviour by the Banks who are doing all in their power to be obstructive ( some appear to be still delaying/obstructing provision of vital information relating to claimants deposited monies) as they remain in denial of their legal obligations according to EXISTING law.

Perhaps I have misunderstood? (Apologies for the rant...it's just so frustrating)

I reckon your partly right though. 

It must be everyone's right to appeal a court decision even if your a pauper or a bank, they have to search their own conscience about why they do it frequently.  Conscience is something banks have shown they don't really have,  as a collective entity.   If you could take an individual to court in a bank it would be a different matter I reckon. 

The fee lawyers seem to work to a set table of fees (bar fees or something).  If you ask for a quote in those terms isn't it going to be better to follow and understand?   

Anyway good luck, I don't know very much about Spanish law generally but have to trust someone!!  My case is in first instance in June, I just hope I can get to know quickly what's happening guy who says he hasn't heard for 2 months since his case went to court is being treated very poorly. 

Maria,

I wonder at what point it would be deemed legally "reckless" by the Banks to continue appealing, in full denial of existing Supreme Court Doctrine?

I would say that after current Supreme Court doctrine, if:

1. Client proves payment to the developer´s Bank,

2. Client claims on a delay based breach of contract by developer

3. Client has issued a cancellation statement before he is called to complete--- with corresponding First Occupation License

Banks are recklessly litigating

Thank you so much Maria.

If all this criteria was identified as evidence during  litigation against the Bank ( generic or otherwise), and the judge found in favour of the claimant , then given current SC doctrine, would the judge have the power to prohibit any further Bank appeal, due to this being deemed as reckless further litigation?