All EOS blogs All Spain blogs  Start your own blog Start your own blog 

El blog de Maria

Your daily Spanish Law reporter. Have it with a cafe con leche. www.costaluzlawyers.es

Legal tip 1295. NEW! WON CASE against Caja Rural Central for PROMOCIONES EUROHOUSE buyer on Residencial Los Balcones del Valle
Thursday, April 30, 2015 @ 12:22 PM

WON CASE AGAINST CAJA RURAL CENTRAL FOR PROMOCIONES EUROHOUSE BUYER ON RESIDENCIAL LOS BALCONES DEL VALLE

We were pleased to notify one of our clients today that we had won their case against Caja Rural Central.  The client did not receive an individual Guarantee from the developer, Promociones Eurohouse or from the Bank to which his off-plan deposit was paid, Caja Rural Central.

Re: YOUR CASE AGAINST CAJA RURAL CENTRAL, SOCIEDAD COOPERATIVA DE CREDITO 

Please find attached Sentence number XX/2015 from the First Instance Court No.3 in Orihuela.

Your case against CAJA RURAL CENTRAL has been won.

The final paragraph of the First Instance Sentence delivered on 23 April 2015 and notified on 28 April 2015 states: 

“I estimate the Lawsuit filed on behalf of MR xxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx against the bank CAJA RURAL CENTRAL SOCIEDAD COOPERATIVA DE CREDITO, and must condemn the defendant to pay the plaintiff the amount of 26,567.34€ plus legal interest from the date of payment of the amounts to the Bank until the date of this resolution, after that will accrue penalty interest according to Art. 576 of the LEC, without an express order of costs”

So CAJA RURAL is liable to refund the amount of 26,567.34€ plus legal interest from the date the payment was made to the Promociones Eurohouse account at CAJA RURAL until the date of the Sentence.  Penalty interest will accrue from the date of the Court Sentence until full payment to the Court.  

The Judge states that due to serious doubts of concurrent law, given the existence of contradictory jurisprudence from the Supreme Court dated 5 February 2013 and 20 January 2015 relating to the interpretation of LEY 57/1968, costs were not imposed on any one party.  Therefore each party will bear its own legal costs and any common costs will be halved.

The Sentence explains the liability of CAJA RURAL according to its obligations under LEY 57/1968 for the off-plan deposits paid to accounts opened by the developer, PROMOCIONES EUROHOUSE 2010 S.L. in CAJA RURAL.

Particular points of interest stated by the Judge in the Sentence are: 

“The payments were made through the agent Ole Mediterraneo S.L, however it should be noted that the fact that a payment is made by a third party does not deprive it of effectiveness.  So payments made on behalf of the buyer by the agent Ole Mediterraneo S.L. are fully valid.

The non-delivery of individual Guarantees to the buyer does not prevent the right of the buyer to have its funds legally guaranteed as established by LEY 57/1968.

Such Guarantees are fixed by a mandatory legal requirement which cannot be waived in accordance with Art. 7 of LEY 57/1968 which has a clear protective purpose for the buyer (Supreme Court 15 November 1999).

Therefore we must uphold the claim made by the plaintiff, because there being a credit contract between the Bank, CAJA RURAL CENTRAL and the Developer, the buyer acquires the right to recover the amounts paid to the Bank on account of the purchase price of the housing under the legislation cited and any defaults between the 



Like 0




6 Comments


rjmderry said:
Thursday, April 30, 2015 @ 4:40 PM

Don't understand why the courts do not award the costs against CAJA because if they recognised the law your client would not have had to go through the courts for their rightful refund ?


ads said:
Thursday, April 30, 2015 @ 8:51 PM

Does this lay the door open for all bank appeals to quote this SC contradictory jurisprudence in their attempt to disincentivise claimants from making claims, given this legal logic would deny all claimants from ever recovering their costs?

Why should innocent claimants defending their inalienable rights be compromised by inconsistent SC rulings? Perhaps you could clarify the detail Maria?

Would the loss of costs associated with ever increasing appeals by the Banks be compensated by interests awarded, or could this result in a significant loss from monies ultimately recovered?

Those fighting for their rights in the early years (and still stuck in the legal system) have ALREADY been compromised by major court / judicial delays resulting in additional Bank claims not to mention the loss of costs associated with failed developer claims DUE TO NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN.

Why do judges not demonstrate moral authority and take into account the immense stress, financial hardship on innocent claimants, many of whom have had to put their lives on hold in these abusively lengthy interim periods (contravening the rule of law), over which they have had no protection in the form of time constraints?

Yet again this appears to be making innocent victims the scapegoat for all too many failings in the Spanish Justice System!


ads said:
Thursday, April 30, 2015 @ 11:27 PM

Are any of these facts being brought to the attention of the judiciary as part of a legal defence so that they can have no excuse not to demonstrate moral authority as called for by the European Commision?


mariadecastro said:
Monday, May 4, 2015 @ 1:34 PM

I am sure CGPJ is on charge of this all.


mariadecastro said:
Monday, May 4, 2015 @ 1:50 PM

rjmderry:

The case can be appealed in regards to imposition of legal costs.



ads said:
Monday, May 4, 2015 @ 5:55 PM

Yes Maria but this doesn't solve the underlying requirement to wherever possible eradicate (from the outset) inconsistent / contra legem rulings relating to Ley 57/68, or incorrect imposition of interest and costs as required by law, instead of relying upon more and more appeals.
Why should innocent claimants be subjected to such an ongoing legal lottery?

The increasing incidence of appeals to gain consistent enforcement of an existing law not only compromises the innocent client, it also impacts a justice system already struggling to cope with outstanding cases.

Legal arguments highlighting ALL detail associated with return of deposited monies (including evidence relating to previous failures to gain justice) is the only way to bring attention to the stark injustices that are occurring from within the Spanish Justice system, and the only way to ensure/demand that judges demonstrate moral authority and consistency when making their final rulings.


Only registered users can comment on this blog post. Please Sign In or Register now.




 

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More information here. x