Lawyers liability due to lack of guarantee

2 diffferent Court decissions by Provintial Court in Alicante are condemning lawyer to refund fees to buyers if they did not provide them with individual certificates of Bank Guarantees in an off plan purchase. Interesting.

1) Reaffirm legal obligations of Banks receiving those off plan deposits

2) Add this liability of conveyancing lawyers

I have several questions Maria.

Is this similar to joint and several liability with developer and Bank? I'm thinking that if the lawyer goes into administration then would the liability fall back on the Bank?

Also is this only applicable where there was no guarantee provision or would it be applicable in the case of an illegal guarantee ( I.e. not recognised in Spain)?

I hope those ongoing lawsuits against the Bank with no guarantee provision will not be compromised by these rulings? Will they for example have to be resubmitted as joint and several lawsuits to prevent Banks from trying to pass the responsibility on to the lawyers?

Will there be extra costs and more delays associated with this given there is no SC clarification acting as jurisprudence?

Will this now create an element of doubt which will compromise return of costs?

Or will those banks in ongoing cases submitted prior to these recent judicial rulings have to solely honour their responsibilities for return of monies and interest?

It has always been suggested to date that lawsuits against lawyers would be a last resort mechanism, when all else has failed, so has this altered that legal strategy?

I'm not clear what this means Maria.   

Is it the fees charged by a lawyer to an off plan buyer during the purchase process?

Most of the cases I read about on here are direct transactions between off plan purchasers and builders where banks are the account holders.  

Where do lawyers fit in to the picture in this ruling please? 

So does this mean that costs relating to the original conveyancing process will now be recoverable from that law firm, as well as deposited monies and interests from the Bank? And what about recovery of costs in this legal process, will they be recoverable too?

Does this in any way compromise the action against the Bank?

I'm not clear what this means Maria.   

Is it the fees charged by a lawyer to an off plan buyer during the purchase process?

Most of the cases I read about on here are direct transactions between off plan purchasers and builders where banks are the account holders.  

Where do lawyers fit in to the picture in this ruling please? 

Also a follow on question:   When the builder we were buying from went into the administration process, the lawyer made a considerable amount of money advising buyers to stay in this process and 'protect their money'.  I said very firmly at the time it was going to be a waste of money and that it was just a holding up process, guess what I was right.

The lawyers and the courts should have known about the law that Keith Rule investigated, and should have asked people to consuder using it.  I feel the courts should look at return of money through bad advice (or incomplete advice) from that period also.

What are your comments on this please Maria?

Liability for the refund of all paid amounts plus legal interests, using law 57/68 and all its ongoing interpretation by Supreme Courts is either with (1) Guarantor entity (2) entity receiving deposits. That is the main and more substantial claim, which using public inalienable rights of Law 57/68 make Banks main liable party when those amounts were not guaranteed.

As action using law 57/68 does not cover other related expenses, this action against original conveyancing lawyers can be used to claim all expenses their negligencies caused ( hiring of new lawyer, Court agent, POA, travellings....) and,of course, the refund of their  conveyancing fees. They have indemnity insurances so there is no problem on solvency.

Thank you Maria.

What about the instance where a Generic BG existed but no provision of individual guarantee was made, would this be considered negligent?

It will

M