Costa Luz Lawyers lead the way in communicating with their clients

Hi a question for Maria, regarding the execution of a bank guarantee, if the judges sentance comes back in the consumers favour, i would like to know overall how compliant are the devolopers and banks at acknowledging this sentance? I ask this as with an earlier post by M11, they have found they clearly dont have to be compliant! is this common? also what is the average timescale they take to send the deposit to the court. Surely its in their best interest to do this asap as interest will be mounting up.

Thanks

Surely, even if the developer goes bankrupt and puts all their money in someone elses name ie family members.  What about the properties.  Our property was built when we put our deposit on it.  It is still there - empty - surely we should have some claim on this. RG

Dear All,

This thread is starting to get way off the mark, as the originator of the thread I feel it is my responsibility to point out that it was about praise for an innovative law firm and their intention to communicate on a regular basis with their clients and subsequently their lack of communication.

It is not a post for discussions around the rights and wrongs of individual cases, Costa Luz Lawyers in my opinion have the interests of their clients to heart.

My only frustration (apart from the Spanish legal system), and it may be a cultural thing, is that there does not seem to be any urgency or desire to communiate actual dates or timescales with definitive outcomes. 

I for one would like to see actual dates of decisions / actions and a monthly informative report, even if it only says that nothing has changed.

My concern is that if no one pushes and everyone accepts the Mañana, Mañana.....then nothing will change.

Kelju

hello Kelju.  With all due respect. You are aware that this is a forum. Its name alone implies that people will post their individual questions or suggestions. I can only suggest that you put rules down when you start a thread but that would  not be very democratic. It is impossible to be rigid with any subject matter. And if you are praising a law firm I feel it my right to question any information giving by any law firm. If you worked with me for a week you would understand my stance. I find the questions and content being raised are very beneficial. Before this thread does go off the Mark. I am not criticising anyone but using my democratic right to question.

I agree with Myra and I am also forever questioning any advice given.

and as Myra says that's the nature of any forum!

Dear Myra

I appreciate your comments and I do not wish to stop questions being posted.  It is indeed a forum but the subject matter of this THREAD is, in my opinion, being hijacked.

If there are questions around the dubious legality or liquidity of a developer then surely they should be asked under their own heading to warrant the gravitas of the situation.

I and other clients of Costa Luz (I am sure, but I do not represent them) would prefer to see constructive replies from Maria and her partners to our implicit concerns, rather than general and specific questions about other Spanish developers and legalities.

These questions only serve to dilute the original purpose of the thread which centres around the  frustration incurred by a lack of communication.

Kelju

 Hello Kelju. I reiterate. If you are a client of a particular lawyer you obviously have private access to that firm. This is a forum. I firmly believe that as an originator of a post does does not give you the right to determine how it should proceed. You will not be obstructed from receiving information from your lawyer. Unbeknown to you, you have actually assisted others in the same situation. Minds have to be stimulated and all questions asked. Correct and honest information is much needed here in Spain.  I wish you the best of luck with your matter and hope you are not offended by others having varying views.I will respect your wishes and not respond to your posts on this matter. Saying this I have seen to much over many years. Please do not either ask or expect me to not comment on this thread in my own way.

Thank you

Kelju

 The intranet  for online autoupdate is quite advanced and we are producing again the monthly report in bewteen. This will be sent by email as before.All emails for updates are also being answered, so I you want an update please send an email too.

Thanks for your contribution to make our services improve. Thanks truly.

MAria

If you want specific answers from Costa Luz lawyers, and you retain them,  surely you deal direct?

I would guess any reply from Costa Luz in open forum would be general and not case specific

If you want a "Costa Luz  clients only'' forum set one up!

Maria

I would really appreciate an answer to my e:mails and PM I sent you, Steven and Patricia.  As you will know I would like a response before Friday 16th if possible.

Thanks Chrissie1

I received your PM and am answering to you now.

Best,

Maria

General questions for Maria please (also to be copied into the thread entitled Rough Justice Yet Again), and relates to communication and understanding the law in Spain.

What, if anything, is being done to tackle illegal asset stripping by developers in their endeavour to avoid their debts (transference of assets, following enforcement orders)? Has anyone had any success against this form of abuse Maria and can this be classed as criminal action if assets have been hidden or moved after an enforcement order has been petitioned following a case win?

If criminal action is required, does this then become cost prohibitive for the client to pursue? Do you have any suggestions to offer?

Maria, you have suggested recently that the way forward is to tackle the Banks where non provision of legal BG existed alongside developer breach of contract, so does this mean that all monies spent to date on court action against the developer becomes irrelevant, or is this an essential part of the legal process before further action against the Bank can be taken? Is this only possible as a last resort in the eyes of the law as it stands now, in other words is it dependent on a court win against the developer first or not?

Is there any purpose in following legal action against the developer if it becomes an inevitability that they will manipulate their assets in order to avoid payment of debt anyway? And as such does this imply that all legal action against a developer becomes a lottery due to little guarantee of achieving the objective for return of monies?

These are basic questions that now require honest answers to clients if they are to understand and fully appreciate the legal situation in Spain, given the fact that developers appear to be increasingly employing abusive tactics in order to avoid payment of their debts.

Your answers and legal reassurances to the above would be most appreciated (on either thread) and I would suggest are essential to comprehend before clients commit to legal action.

Many thanks.

Maria

The answer you have given to the 1st queston is by no means a complete answer.  I would also ask for an answer to the 2nd question too which has been completely missed.

Kind regards Chrissie1

Christina

General questions for Maria please (also to be copied into the thread entitled Rough Justice Yet Again), and relates to communication and understanding the law in Spain.

What, if anything, is being done to tackle illegal asset stripping by developers in their endeavour to avoid their debts (transference of assets, following enforcement orders)? Has anyone had any success against this form of abuse Maria and can this be classed as criminal action if assets have been hidden or moved after an enforcement order has been petitioned following a case win? Of course yes, there is a crime called " concealment of property" and of course there are thousands of Case Law examples of these actions being punished.

If criminal action is required, does this then become cost prohibitive for the client to pursue? Not necessarily. Do you have any suggestions to offer? It depends on every case.

Maria, you have suggested recently that the way forward is to tackle the Banks where non provision of legal BG existed alongside developer breach of contract, so does this mean that all monies spent to date on court action against the developer becomes irrelevant, or is this an essential part of the legal process before further action against the Bank can be taken? Yes, it is necessary, in our opinion,  to follow the procedure against the developer too. Is this only possible as a last resort in the eyes of the law as it stands now, in other words is it dependent on a court win against the developer first or not? No, it is not, both procedures can be carried out simultaneously.

Is there any purpose in following legal action against the developer if it becomes an inevitability that they will manipulate their assets in order to avoid payment of debt anyway?  It is necessary as it is impoprtant to have the Court Decission against the developer in order to better prove the cause-effect relationship between lack of Bank Guarantee and damage. This is the most crucial part of the tort action.And as such does this imply that all legal action against a developer becomes a lottery due to little guarantee of achieving the objective for return of monies? The obtention of the Court decission is an achievement and it is, in our opinion, necessary for the  best  implementation of the tort action against the Bank. This does not mean that you need to wait for the Court decission to be in place before proceeding against the Bank.

These are basic questions that now require honest answers to clients if they are to understand and fully appreciate the legal situation in Spain, given the fact that developers appear to be increasingly employing abusive tactics in order to avoid payment of their debts.

Your answers and legal reassurances to the above would be most appreciated (on either thread) and I would suggest are essential to comprehend before clients commit to legal action.

Many thanks.

Chrissie: I have just sent an email to you. I saw no question in the email you sent.

Please let me know and I will very happily answer it.

Best regards,

Maria

Thank you for your replies Maria....... I never got chance to copy it into the thread on Rough Justice as my computer went down , so it's much appreciated that you responded on there too.

One more question..... does this mean that the legal costs to follow through both processes are doubled, or if not, what sort of percentage extra costs will be incurred when taking on the action against the Bank as well. It's a real worry that the legal process to regain monies is expanding in this way part way through a claim and clients need to know from the outset what their charges will be.

 Thanks again for the speed of response on this matter.

Maria

These questions were sent to you as a PM and by e:mail.  I have now sent them again by PM and now on the EOS.  I have made them in bold now. We have only tonight now to achieve some advice. I hope this is now clear

Maria (original message sent 12/13th April and now 15th)

We hope you managed to have a relaxing time during the easter time.  We have a couple of questions to ask you please.

1. I have recently e;mailed you with regards to your recent podcast which you highlighted that as we were not given a bank guarantee when placing a deposit for an Off Plan property at Jumilla that we could now pursue the bank under law 57/68.  As you know our contract with San Jose/HdT was cancelled because our case had been presented by you to the courts when trying to gain preferential credit, in the end this was stated as being ordinary.  Could you advise us as to the best way to now proceed with our case and approximately how long it would take.

2. In the last few days we have been sent a letter from HdT to invite us to a presentation and to ask us to vote either NO for the company to go into liquidation or  YES for the company to continue.  If we say NO then they say they would give us back 65 percent of our deposit over a period of 3-5 years.  If we vote YES for liquidation we would only receive money after the company assets were sold off.  Our question is if they only give us 65 percent of our deposit this would mean we would lose around 25k of our deposit.  They have asked that we attend on Friday 16th April 2010 so we would appreciate it if you could help us with some advice and the best way forward.  Apparently Notaries will be present at this meeting on 16th April.

Kind regards Chrissie1  (Christina & Robert)

Regards Chrissie1

David W, Myra Cecilia, Faro

Perhaps you have not understood my concern, this THREAD did not set out to ask Costa Luz Lawyers case specific questons and therefore expect case specific answers, I do not wish to set up a forum for costa luz clients.

My original posting was to praise Costa Luz for providing monthly reports, which, without any communication, stopped after the November report.  As I had been full of praise for them on a thread on a public forum I thought it only right to ask the question why the reports had stopped on the same thread, emails had gone unanswered at this point.

I was concerned that the thread was being hijacked and diluting the purpose therefore giving an excuse not to answer the original questions and concerns about the lack of information coming from Costa Luz Lawyers.

Maria has replied today stating that the reports will be sent out, I am happy with this as I feel that the thread has now done it's job providing the reports are delivered as promised.  If not I will post again.

I am not trying to prevent anyone having an open discussion on a forum, I just think that a new thread specific to their concerns might have served their purposes better and provided better clarity.

Kelju

I too have not had a report since November 2009, so that is almost five months since I had any sort of communication from Maria's Firm. If the reports had not been promised on a regular basis I would not have had any worries. But they were, and so I expected them,without fail, every month. If the system for sending the reports was not fully operational it would have been better not to have mentioned it.

It is disconcerting when promises are broken, especially in the circumstances.