Costa Luz Lawyers

Only up to the point where the Bank transfers principal  monies into the court Fazerelli ( following a preliminary enforcement)? Or does this accruing interest continue until final ruling if appeals are forthcoming?

Goodstich44: You are right, hence condemnation to pay legal costs--- and the increase of interests are against them.

Ads: Legal Interests keep growing till they are fixed by the Judge after the proposal by both parties. In addition to that, Judges ex officio (  with no need of request by parties) adds the 2% on top of the legal interest.

Article 576 of Civil Procedure Act: 

 Since first instance decission is issued and this is condemning to the payment of a liquid amount of money, the accrual of an annual interest equal to the legal interest of the money increased by two points or that  which corresponds by agreement of the parties or by special provision of the law starts in favor of the creditor. 

If bank appeal and loses, these judicial delay interests are imposed on it along that period.

Thanks for clarifying that Maria.

Ads, the interest (2+3%) is accruing from the date of the judgement, until it's settled. So, it seems like the courts ARE imposing extra disincentives to prolong the cases with appeals. In my case, the extra 2% is about €1500+ per year, which is considerable, but not necessarily that prohibitive. When you add the costs up for the banks, it will make them think about not appealing, and hopefully dissuade more of them.

BUT...  What if an inconsistent ruling is given with regard to interest not being backdated to date of deposit ( as is occuring for those who took early action against developers and needed to take further action against the Bank), and the claimant is advised to appeal for additional interest? If they have enforced the principal in the interim, does the interest stop accruing in that instance as it not the bank appealing, but the claimant?

Sorry to labour this point but clarification would really help for those who are being exposed to this scenario.

Sadly Fazerilli, any disincentive to the Banks is wiped out by the inconsistent ruling..  

This message was last edited by ads on 21/03/2018.

If Appeal decides on the date of payment to the developer as starting point of accruing of interests, interests will be legal rate from the date of payment to the developer to First Instance Court Decision and legal + judicial delay since then to effective payment.

Would a preliminary enforcement be deemed an "effective payment" Maria, in other words would interest stop accruing at that point, or would it continue accruing until the point of final ruling? 

Preliminary enforcement, while interests are being discussed, will not stop the increasing of them to your favor according to the rules that the Appeal will finally dictate

Thank you Maria.

All of this discussion only accentuates the reason why it is so important to keep a consistency of judicial ruling as close as possible to the intent of SC doctrine which has clarified that interest should be backdated to date of deposit into developer accounts, as this was the point in time that Banks guarantor responsibilities commenced.

I find it disturbing to hear of inconsistent rulings that appear to challenge this SC principle and allow Banks to exploit the system to their own ends ( for Banks to purposefully proliferate elements of doubt from which costs can be challenged in the interim periods prior to doctrine) and in that process undermine the ability to deter bad intent / malpractice and lack of full accountability, not to mention their lack of compliance with  their own codes of conduct.

For instance I noted recently that Caixa Bank ( as one example) quote in their "values and principles of conduct" the following....

"Caixa Bank is committed to carrying out its activities in accordance with the most scrupulous legal and ethical requirements & the optimum standards....such action principles are as follows: compliance with effective law and legislation at all times, respect, integrity, transparency, social responsibility.....compliance with the law are core principles of conduct at Caixa Bank."

I think many would argue sadly that there appears hypocrisy between Banks' actions with regard to their denial of responsibilities as financial guarantors , and their actual compliance with such statements.

For this reason it becomes ever more essential that law and all its articles intended to protect is fully respected, which relies heavily upon consistency of already clarified rulings, hence the need for greater transparency whenever inconsistencies as recently discussed, arise.

Thank you once again for your patience Maria.

Sometimes the legal language and system of justce in Spain is hard to comprehend but I trust and hope that these questions encourage greater comprehension, and for that we all remain very grateful for your ongoing support.

All we can hope is that the judiciary stay strong and united in this regard in the interim periods prior to achieving all necessary SC doctrine, and are guided to remain fully aware of Banks' " bad faith" elements that have the potential to undermine the system of justice in Spain.

Hello Maria,

Could you please explain what happens if we have won the case by court but all of a sudden the developer goes bankrupt. Is there any chance of getting our deposit back?

Many thanks

Dear Helia:

If you have proofs of developer´s bank account where money was paid into or pieces of evidence of the existence of a Guarantor for the refund of off plan amounts in that development, you certainly can. That has been the fight CLL started under the encouragement of Keith Rule back in 2008.

There is abundant and established case law to defend this now. If you want, you can contact us for a free appraisal of your case.

You can find our contact details at www.costaaluzlawyers.es

Dear all

Even if you win your case, there is no guarantee you will get your money back but you are guaranteed a bill for legal representation.  There are no follow ups after a win, months, years passed by and then next you know it, the company goes into administration.  There are no time frame as to when you should get your money back.

For me it was a case of throwing borrowed money away for nothing to fight an unjust system.

It is common practice to liquidate a company facing a court loss and all part of the game. A warning to everyone. It’s called win and get nought, but your lawyer still wants all their money.

Dear Kavanagh:

Did you claim against a developer or a Bank?

Hello Maria

My comments are from years of business experience and only my opinions. A bank cannot liquidate to avoid a court loss, but an individual and small to medium size company easily can and often does. It’s the smart legal way of avoiding debt liability by removing all assets and placing them with a new legal entirety.

Perhaps lawyers should make this clear to clients before engaging in expensive litigation.

Under data protections laws I am unable to disclose to you any personal claims I have made.

Thanks Kavanagh.

You can contact me privately if you need

M