Fight keeps going! Costaluz Lawyers won cases in 2018 and 2019

2018

2019

Well done Maria and team.

I wonder if there could be some way of knowing how many and which of these successful cases are being further contested to the Supreme Court by the relevant Banks?

Also have there been any rulings from the Supreme Court of late that have significant impact on cases going forward?

Many thanks.

Dear Ads:

Some are being challeged at the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court is fixing to its doctrine, expectioning cases where it has been proven by the bank that developer and buyer reached agreements and used practises to avoid the protection of law 57/68

Thank you Maria.

For the sake of transparency would it be possible to see on those charts which successful cases and which Banks are further contesting successful rulings to the SC? 

Re new SC doctrine relating to developer and buyer agreements, what sort of agreements would this include, and does this mean that if the developer became insolvent following interim agreements, that they would not be protected by Ley 57/68? It’s a little confusing to understand what this actually means.

Ads:

I will try to obtain a general info on how many of those cases are now under the Supreme Court. It wil take some time.

It seems some buyers, in some cases, decided not to be submitted to protection of Law 57/67 against other offers by developers. But these are exceptional cases.

What the Supreme Court is affirming once and again is that (1) They are not changing their doctrine (2) Just in those cases where possibilities of control by the Bank were elliminated by developer/claimant in purpose, banks can scape liability. Again: these are an exception.

There is some ongoing discussion on whenn a buyer is not covered by this Law as being an investor.

On general terms, Case Law os advancing positively

Thank you Maria.

As well as the numbers of cases It would also be helpful to know which banks are still contesting Ley 57/68 to the Supreme Court, following your successful appeals, and on what grounds are they still challenging this law. 

Ok.  Noted. Will try to do a small report on what you are asking as soon as I can

The 29th April was my 73rd birthday and I was 59 years old when.......................................................................................

.....In April 2005 we paid the first part of our deposit on an apartmen in Mijas. The shell of the development was up and was awaiting the next stage. Our lawyer failed to inform us the development’s original  developers had gone bankrupt and we were purchasing from the second developer. Then after we purchased, this developer also went bankrupt. After many months of delays in finding someone to complete it the development was eventually issued a habitation licence in late 2008 (three years after the completion date we were promised) when the financing bank stepped in and found a builder to complete the development. Of course as lowly buyers we were fed a pack of lies regarding the delays and not until after we cancelled the contract did it become clear what had actually caused the delays.

In June 2008 we engaged Costaluz lawyers to cancel our contract and seek the refund of our deposit after we were unable to see that the development would ever be completed.

The whole debacle has ruined our retirement dream and cost us in excess of £100,000.00 including lawyers fees.

Our health is now such that we would now have sold the apartment and be using the funds to make our retirement more comfortable but the banks, aided by the judges, are hanging on to our money for all they are worth. 

Rant over!

Sandra,

What are the grounds upon which the Bank are contesting your claim and have you achieved any success at appeal level during this excessively lengthy process? Have you not been able to gain any preliminary enforcement of principal monies in the interim period? Is this now being contested at SC level?

I wonder if you fit into any of the categories that Maria identified, "It seems some buyers, in some cases, decided not to be submitted to protection of Law 57/67 against other offers by developers. But these are exceptional cases." or

"There is some ongoing discussion on when a buyer is not covered by this Law as being an investor."

With this in mind, I wonder if Maria could clarify whether any supportive case law exists whereby "other offers by developers" would require the purchaser's explicit agreement to forgo their inalienable rights with regard to the protection provided by Ley57/68?

How can a purchaser be deemed to be exempt from these INALIENABLE protective rights if they have never been informed or required to agree to such an exemption? Likewise with being classed as an investor....how can a purchaser be deemed to be exempt from these INALIENABLE protective rights if they have never been requested to agree to such an exemption?

Doesn't this come down to the SC recognising INALIENABLE rights...i.e. Inalienable definition, not transferable to another or not capable of being taken away or denied.

Sandra:

I have just sent a private email to you

Kind regards

Maria

Ads,

We did not waive our rights nor were we investors. We purchased a ‘flipped’ property on a part built development and the seller is now long gone. Had we known the history of the development there is not a chance that we would have purchased, but hindsight is a wonderful thing.

At our first appointment In the plush Marbella lawyers office there were two lawyers present, then  a young English associate was called in to the room to ‘witness’ the proceedings. My main concerns were that our money was safe ( we were in business for almost thirty years) and we were assured that the Bank Guarantee would protect us, even paying interest on our funds should there be delays.

After we decided to cancel the contract and the lawyer seemed most reluctant to carry out our wishes we asked Maria to take up our case. It was then the lawyer revealed that there was no Bank Guarantee because, in his words, ‘the developer failed in his duty to provide one.’

We have had court cases against the developer and the bank both of which have taken years to go through the Spanish court system. After waiting almost a year for the judge to deliberate on our last case he requested further information from the bank. In my last communication from Maria the banks have not yet produced the required paperwork and enlisting the help of the police was being considered.

Maria is welcome to correct any errors in my recollection of the details.

Questions....

When a defendant ( in this case the Bank) is obstructive to the request for evidence, what options are open to the claimants lawyer?

Can they request a time limit to be placed upon production of evidence, and if not adhered to, can they raise a request for a judicial ruling in the absence of evidence, based upon perceived obstructive behaviour and bad faith? Or would this not be allowed? Is placing a time constraint of this order on production of evidence purely at the discretion of the judge?

Has this been reported and placed on official record with the relevant Banking authorities?

Who is monitoring compromising instances of this nature? Are we once again highlighting a major failure in regulatory Banking compliance?

It is our understanding that the SC has made two judicial reviews SSTS January 2018 and September 2018 in favour of the banks.  Is anyone aware of these and if so what implications do they have on claimants going forward?

In Sandra case, it is the developer who is not being found by the Courts. We have provided all possible localization means but still no fruit. We are studying further measures ahead.

Recent  SupremeCourt decissions dated January 2018 and September 2018 are for cases where, existing a General Guarantee and payments/ account being established in the private purchase contracts, these payments were made by buyers/ conveyancing lawyers with no submission to contract specifications.

Surveillance duties and possibilities of Guarantoors, according to law 57/68 are in relation to contracts and developers accounts that are available to them by virtue of this law. 

If a buyer willingly decides to pay in a way/ amounts different to what is contractually agreed, Guarantoors are not liable. 

If buyers sent their deposits to lawyers and it was them who paid it in a way different to contract terms, liability is of the lawyers, obviously.

Thank you Maria.

In the event of previously proven developer breach, contract cancellation and developer insolvency, if claimants have already proved their monies were deposited into developer accounts (via successful provincial appeal rulings against the GENERAL guarantor Bank) and the purchase contract named the GENERAL guarantor, are their inalienable rights still fully protected under Ley57/68 according to these recent SC reviews?

Does this also include protection of their rights for backdated interest?

Ads. Affirmative answer to both questions

M

After waiting almost a year for the judge to deliberate on our last case he requested further information from the bank. 

I seriously doubt the Spanish justice system and those working in it have any intention of implementing any justice against a Spanish national wherever possible.

At the best winning is one thing, getting the money is another.

All our clients with won cases against clients are getting their refunds back

M

Getting ‘’on paper’’ is not quite the same as money in the pocket.

Yes... in their pocket. They have got their money in their bank accounts

M