14 Jun 2018 3:22 PM:

Hello Zookeeper

This afternoon I have replied to the email that you sent to me yesterday.

Kind regards

Keith

 

Community thread: Costaluz Lawyers

--------------------------------------

10 Apr 2018 10:14 AM:

BANKINTER (formerly Banco Intercontinental Espanol) was sentenced to refund the full off plan deposit paid by the buyer plus interest from the date the amounts were paid to the Corvera bank account.

Costs of the First Instance procedure were imposed on the defendant bank.

Interesting statements from the Judge in the Sentence were:

“The Bank is in rebellion as it did not file a defence to the Lawsuit.

The plaintiffs claim the sum of xxx,xxx€ paid for a house due to be constructed by the developer in the promotion ‘Corvera Golf & Country Club’. 

As the developer failed to construct the housing on time according to the Purchase Contract the plaintiffs originally filed a Lawsuit against the developer for judicial resolution of the purchase contract.  The case against Corvera was lost in the First Instance Court, however following an Appeal the Provincial Appeal Court revoked the First Instance Sentence and upheld the claims of the plaintiff.  The Sentence terminated the Purchase Contract and condemned the developer to the repayment of the amounts paid on account.  Corvera never paid.  The Sentence also refers to the Guarantee issued by the defendant bank.

The Guarantee contains an expiry date of May 2009 and a limit on the amount of interest.  These limitations are not valid.

Having been duly demonstrated that the defendant bank endorsed Corvera Golf & Country Club SL for the sum claimed and that the beneficiaries of the Guarantee are the plaintiffs in this Lawsuit, the claim must be upheld in full”

 

Forum thread: 9 cases won so far in 2018 by CostaluzLawyers

--------------------------------------

15 Jan 2018 5:58 PM:

Hi Ads

Answers in bold:

I wonder if you could please clarify the following somewhat complex queries with regard to interest payments (Ley 57/68).

When a case against the Bank has been won at first instance level with award of costs and interest backdated only to date of claim against the Bank, and the Bank does not challenge this ruling within the 20 day period, but the claimant then appeals for additional interest (as per the original lawsuit), do they risk losing the costs and interest originally awarded as per the unopposed first instance ruling as a fallback position,if they subsequently lost the appeal for addtional interest?  NO

In other words do the costs associated with the appeal for additional interest remain separate from the costs relating to the unopposed first instance win?  YES

Who pays for costs if the appeal for additional interest is won? Is this split between the two parties so each pay their own costs? YES.  If an Appeal is won then costs will not be imposed on any party.  Each party will pay its own costs for the Appeal.  If an Appeal is lost then it is likely that Appeal costs would be imposed on the losing party.

Likewise, will the claimant be responsible for costs of both parties relating to the appeal for additional interest if they lose the appeal?  Possibly, yes.  That is up to the Magistrates to decide.

When a final ruling on interest has been achieved, do the Bank have the right to continue querying the costs as per the final ruling?  The Bank can challange the costs calculations, but ultimately it will be the Judge that sets the exact amount of costs that can be recovered.

 

This message was last edited by Keith110 on 15/01/2018.

This message was last edited by Keith110 on 15/01/2018.
Forum thread: Question for Maria on interest payments (Ley 57/68)

--------------------------------------

05 Jan 2017 10:50 PM:

CORVERA GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB GOES INTO ADMINISTRATION

LEY 57/1968 – RESPONSIBILITY OF THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTION – BANK OR INSURER

On 16 December, the Mercantile Court Number One of Murcia declared, at the request of creditors represented by the Costaluz Lawyers & DeCastro legal teams, the insolvency and administration of Corvera Golf & Country Club SL, and the assets of this company are now suspended.

The administration of Corvera will give greater clarity for claims against banks that accepted buyer’s off-plan deposit amounts for properties at Corvera and also against the guarantor banks or insurance companies.  

Claims due to delay in delivery of the properties can be directed against the Banks in the light of recent important Supreme Court Sentences that are declaring, with forcefulness, the responsibility of the developer’s Banks as guardians of the security of those deposits in off-plan purchases.

This responsibility is given in two different scenarios, both confirmed by the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court according to Spanish Law, LEY 57/68: 

(1) Liability of the financial institution that receives amounts paid by off-plan buyers into an account opened by the real estate developer, if the property is not completed on time.  These banks are responsible, for the return of the off-plan deposits plus interest.

(2) Liability of the guarantors, even though individual guarantee documents have not been given to purchasers: the understanding of General Guarantee agreements signed between developers and insurers or banks has always been interpreted by the Supreme Court in favour of the buyer for the full amount paid to the developers bank account by the buyer irrespective of any arbitrary limit included in the General Guarantee.

Banks also responsible if there were urban irregularities

A recent Supreme Court ruling also holds off-plan property developer banks liable if the development is not completed due to urban irregularities. The reason for this strong protection to the purchaser of first and second residences is in the eminently protective nature of LEY 57/68, which gives rights to the buyer which are of an inalienable nature.

This jurisprudence contributes to the regeneration of the trust in second homes in Spain that was sadly eroded due to the unscrupulous behaviour of many of those involved in the last real estate and financial bubble.

Community thread: Corvera entered receivership

--------------------------------------

05 Jan 2017 10:49 PM:

CORVERA GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB GOES INTO ADMINISTRATION

LEY 57/1968 – RESPONSIBILITY OF THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTION – BANK OR INSURER

On 16 December, the Mercantile Court Number One of Murcia declared, at the request of creditors represented by the Costaluz Lawyers & DeCastro legal teams, the insolvency and administration of Corvera Golf & Country Club SL, and the assets of this company are now suspended.

The administration of Corvera will give greater clarity for claims against banks that accepted buyer’s off-plan deposit amounts for properties at Corvera and also against the guarantor banks or insurance companies.  

Claims due to delay in delivery of the properties can be directed against the Banks in the light of recent important Supreme Court Sentences that are declaring, with forcefulness, the responsibility of the developer’s Banks as guardians of the security of those deposits in off-plan purchases.

This responsibility is given in two different scenarios, both confirmed by the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court according to Spanish Law, LEY 57/68: 

(1) Liability of the financial institution that receives amounts paid by off-plan buyers into an account opened by the real estate developer, if the property is not completed on time.  These banks are responsible, for the return of the off-plan deposits plus interest.

(2) Liability of the guarantors, even though individual guarantee documents have not been given to purchasers: the understanding of General Guarantee agreements signed between developers and insurers or banks has always been interpreted by the Supreme Court in favour of the buyer for the full amount paid to the developers bank account by the buyer irrespective of any arbitrary limit included in the General Guarantee.

Banks also responsible if there were urban irregularities

A recent Supreme Court ruling also holds off-plan property developer banks liable if the development is not completed due to urban irregularities. The reason for this strong protection to the purchaser of first and second residences is in the eminently protective nature of LEY 57/68, which gives rights to the buyer which are of an inalienable nature.

This jurisprudence contributes to the regeneration of the trust in second homes in Spain that was sadly eroded due to the unscrupulous behaviour of many of those involved in the last real estate and financial bubble.

Forum thread: Corvera entered receivership

--------------------------------------