Spanish Off-Plan Property - Bank Guarantees - LEY 57/68

FINCA PARCS - NO SUPREME COURT APPEAL FROM CAM BANK – CASE CLOSED

2013-05-16T09:58:14

PRESS / MEDIA RELEASE - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – 15 MAY 2013

FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP vs CAJA DE AHORROS DEL MEDITERRÁNEO (CAM BANK) & SPANISH PROPERTY DEVELOPER, CLEYTON GES SL

FINCA PARCS - CASE CLOSED

FIRST INSTANCE & APPEAL COURT SENTENCES NOW FIRM AGAINST CAM BANK & CLEYTON GES

NO SUPREME COURT APPEAL FROM CAM BANK – CASE CLOSED

Disgraced CAM Bank once described by the Governor of the Bank of Spain as the ‘worst of the worst’ has not filed an Appeal to the Supreme Court in the Finca Parcs case. Therefore, the Sentence issued by the First Instance Court in Hellín on 8 June 2012 and confirmed by the Albacete Provincial Appeal Court on 11 April 2013 is now FIRM and FINAL against both CAM Bank (now SabadellCAM) & the property developer, Cleyton GES SL.

The First Instance Sentence that was ratified by the Provincial Appeal Court concluded that both the developer and Bank failed to fulfil their legal obligations according to Spanish Law, LEY 57/1968 and that CAM Bank was guilty of malpractice and a complete dereliction of its duties.

The Court convicted jointly and severally both defendants to return off-plan deposits paid by the 47 buyers totalling almost 1.5 million Euros for houses that were never built at the abandoned Las Higuericas, Finca Parcs development close to Agramón, Albacete.

BUYER’S REFUNDS

As the Sentence is now firm the Court has released the principal amount of the group member’s deposits which was paid by CAM Bank to the Court following the provisional enforcement of the First Instance Sentence in July 2012.

In due course the 47 group members will each receive a refund of their off-plan deposits less costs.

Interest and Costs will be calculated, agreed by the Court, and then paid to group members in approximately 2 to 3 months.

Finca Parcs Action Group Co-ordinator, Keith Rule says:

“This is a momentous day, one that many of the group members thought they would never see. We were elated in June 2012 when we won in the First Instance Court and again in April 2013 when we won in the Appeal Court. However, today is probably more significant as it marks the end of the case with a firm and final Sentence against both the Bank & Developer.

We provisionally enforced the First Instance Sentence in July 2012 and this resulted in CAM Bank paying the principal amount of the deposits to the Court. As the decision is now final the Court has released the funds payment to each group member.

Since paying my off-plan deposit in 2006 I always believed that the banks have liabilities and obligations according to Spanish Law, LEY 57/1968. One of my biggest hurdles in 2008 and 2009 was finding a Lawyer who also shared my view.

The fact that we now have a firm and final decision in this case is evidence that there has always been substance to my views and opinions in cases such as this.

The true measure of success in the legal process is to obtain the refund of the off-plan deposits. We have now achieved that.

I would like to thank María de Castro, director of Costa Luz Lawyers, for trusting my views back in 2008 and having the confidence to support and assist me in building such a strong case against both the developer and bank. Also we are truly grateful to Jaime de Castro, our litigator who at all times worked in such a professional, efficient and determined manner on behalf of the whole group.

Thanks also the group members for believing and joining me on this momentous journey. Final success has been a long time coming but all concerned can be rightfully very proud of what we have achieved.

One thing is for sure, LEY 57/1968 may have been introduced 45 years ago but never before has it been the centre of so much public and legal attention”

María de Castro, Director of Costa Luz Lawyers comments:

“This case is an excellent example of how Judges in Spain are teaching Banks to treat people.

It is a magnificent result in favour of the consumer”

Group Lawyer, Jaime de Castro comments:

“Spanish legislation protects off-plan house buyers with protective rules that do not exist in other European countries. LEY 57/1968 is an old Law that is still in force and makes the banks and developers jointly responsible for the amounts paid in advance by buyers when the housing is not delivered or is completed after the deadline agreed in the contract. The Spanish Courts are applying this Law strictly and categorically”

LANDMARK CASE LAW

Lawyers representing other buyers of off-plan property in Spain who were not issued with the legally required Bank Guarantees to protect their deposits can now use the Finca Parcs decision as Case Law to strengthen legal arguments in their own cases.

Keith says;

“The Finca Parcs case will no doubt help to strengthen the Lawsuits of other off-plan buyers who did not receive the legally required Bank Guarantees, many of whom still have their life savings at risk.

Together with our legal team at Costa Luz / De Castro we have worked tirelessly since 2008 to highlight this issue in the media and to the Spanish & British Governments. That belief and hard work is now backed up by two very strong sentences from the Hellín First Instance Court and the Albacete Appeal Court that are now firm and final.

To those off-plan buyers still affected by these issues I would say, never give up. Stay strong, keep believing and always focus on getting your money back. Much against the odds, we in the Finca Parcs Action Group have succeeded in winning against a big financial entity and I am sure others will now achieve similar success in the future. We have proved that it is possible”

FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP – TIMELINE OF THE LEGAL ACTION – LAWSUIT 1

● 2006 - No legally required Bank Guarantees for Off-Plan deposits totalling 1.5 million
Euros
● February 2011 – Lawsuit 1 against CAM Bank & developer Cleyton GES SL filed to Court

● 12 January 2012 - First Instance Court Preliminary Hearing
● 21 & 22 May 2012 - Trial held in First Instance Court - Hellín

● 8 June 2012 - Judgment released in favour of Finca Parcs Action Group
● CAM Bank and Cleyton GES SL sentenced to return deposits amounting to almost 1.5
    million Euros to the buyers with the addition of legal interest and costs
● July 2012 - CAM Bank appeals the First Instance Court Judgment
● July 2012 - Finca Parcs Action Group submits Opposition to the CAM Appeal
● July 2012 - Finca Parcs Action Group file Provisional Enforcement Order to the Court
● August 2012 – CAM Bank pays full amount of deposits plus legal interest and costs
    to the Court
● Appeal to be heard by the Albacete Appeal Court
● 4 March 2013 - Appeal Magistrates to meet for deliberation & voting on the CAM Bank Appeal
● 11 April 2013 – Appeal court dismisses the CAM Bank Appeal and confirms First Instance
    Sentence in full and imposes costs of Appeal on CAM Bank

● 14 May 2013 - CAM Bank do NOT appeal to the Supreme Court
● 14 May 2013 - FIRST INSTANCE & APPEAL COURT SENTENCE NOW FIRM AND FINAL
● Court releases Principal Amount of buyers off-plan deposits amounting to almost 1.5 million
    Euros to the Finca Parcs Action Group Legal Team
● As per the Sentence, interest and legal costs will now be calculated and paid to the buyers in
    due course

LETTER FROM THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT

2013-04-26T14:11:10

Foreign & Commonwealth Office
Overseas Residents Service Unit
Consular Assistance Group
Room WHMZ 4.2
King Charles Street
London
SW1A 2AH

25 April 2013

Our Reference: MIN/*****/2013

Dear Keith,

Thank you for your letter of 04 April to the Prime Minister about his recent visit to Spain. Downing Street have passed the letter to me and asked me to reply.

Firstly, I want to extend my congratulations to you and all those involved over the recent Albacete Appeal Court decision dismissing the Banco CAM appeal and ordering them to pay the costs of the appeal. You must be really pleased with this decision. Myself and colleagues at the British Embassy in Madrid – including the British Ambassador, Giles Paxman - have been monitoring the case and were thrilled to hear of your success. Your success is a valuable case study for us to reference in discussions on property matters with Spanish authorities - particularly when talking about bank guarantees.

In your letter to Prime Minister you ask that he raise bank guarantees with Mariano Rajoy. I can confirm that the Prime Minister discussed a range of issues during his visit, including reform of the EU and prosperity priorities. Unfortunately, property issues were not covered. I can confirm, however, that bank guarantees in Spain remains a subject that UK Ministers are aware of and raise where they have the opportunity. Mr Paxman and officials at the British Embassy do likewise during their meetings with Spanish officials. This is an issue that we know continues to affect British Nationals and we will continue to urge the Spanish authorities to address it appropriately.

Yours sincerely,

Stelios Kyriakides

PRESS RELEASE - CAM BANK FINCA PARCS APPEAL DISMISSED

2013-04-16T16:28:46

PRESS / MEDIA RELEASE - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – 16 APRIL 2013

FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP vs CAJA DE AHORROS DEL MEDITERRÁNEO (CAM BANK) & SPANISH PROPERTY DEVELOPER, CLEYTON GES SL

ALBACETE APPEAL COURT DISMISSES CAM BANK APPEAL AND CONFIRMS FIRST INSTANCE SENTENCE

FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP – TIMELINE OF THE LEGAL ACTION – LAWSUIT 1

● 2006 - No legally required Bank Guarantees for Off-Plan deposits totalling 1.5 million
Euros
● February 2011 – Lawsuit 1 against CAM Bank & developer Cleyton GES SL filed to Court

● 12 January 2012 - First Instance Court Preliminary Hearing
● 21 & 22 May 2012 - Trial held in First Instance Court - Hellín

Section 1 of the Albacete Provincial Appeal Court has confirmed the Sentence issued by the First Instance Court No. 2 of Hellín, which sentenced the developer Cleyton GES SL and CAM Bank (now SabadellCAM) to repay almost 1.5 million Euros to 47 buyers at the Las Higuericas Finca Parcs development near Murcia, Spain.

Following the Trial in May 2012, Spanish property developer Cleyton GES SL and financing bank BANCO CAM SLU were sentenced to repay in full the off-plan deposits paid by members of the Finca Parcs Action Group plus in terest and costs. Cleyton GES SL did not appeal the First Instance Court Sentence which as a consequence is now ‘firm’ against them; however CAM Bank did Appeal.

The Albacete Appeal Court Magistrates met for deliberation and voting on 4 March 2013 and they have just announced their decision.

The CAM Bank appeal has been dismissed and the First Instance Sentence issued by the First Instance Court in Hellín on 8 June 2012 has been confirmed in full with all costs of the Appeal imposed on CAM Bank.

FIRST INSTANCE SENTENCE CONFIRMED

The First Instance Sentence that has now been ratified concluded that both the developer and Bank failed to fulfil their legal obligations.

The court convicted jointly and severally both defendants, the developer Cleyton GES SL and the sole financial entity of the project, Caja de Ahorros del Mediterráneo (CAM), to return the off-plan deposits paid by group members totalling almost 1.5 million Euros for houses that were never built at the abandoned Las Higuericas, Finca Parcs development close to Agramón, Albacete.

The First Instance Judge declared the 55 sales contracts terminated due to “serious breaches” by the developer and stated that CAM Bank “failed in its legal obligations to control the use of off-plan deposits paid in advance for this development”.

Regarding the involvement of CAM Bank, which claimed it has no relationship with the buyers and that it was ‘oblivious’ to the off-plan deposits paid to accounts at its branches, the First Instance Sentence stated that, “The fact is that CAM knew that the payments into Cleyton GES accounts opened at its branches were payments by buyers on account of off-plan real estate purchases and CAM showed an absolute disregard to the obligations imposed on financial institutions by LEY 57/1968 and this behaviour can only be described as malpractice”. The Judge noted that “it is clear the off-plan deposits were used in a manner contrary to the requirements of Spanish Law, LEY 57/1968”.

The First Instance Sentence concluded:

We must not forget that the obligation to deposit the amounts advanced to an account opened specifically for that purpose is that of the financial institution as not only does it receive the premium of the guarantees but also benefits by way of profit from the project. In fact, CAM was the only financial entity involved in the project as it demanded exclusivity.

Keith Rule, the claimant questioned at the trial, clearly demonstrated that the buyers contacted both the developer and Bank through multiple means urging them to grant the Bank Guarantees for the deposits paid”.

CAM BANK APPEAL & OPPOSITION TO THE APPEAL

In its appeal CAM Bank again argued that it was oblivious to the payments made by the claimants and that clauses in the ‘Contract of Guarantee Operations’ signed between itself and Cleyton GES SL protected it from having to automatically issue the individual Bank Guarantees to buyers.

In its opposition to the Appeal, Finca Parcs Action Group Lawyer, Jaime de Castro argued that the reliance by CAM of the need for the buyers to pay their deposits to the ‘one’ Special Account was baseless. This argument was supported by evidence to show that over a 19 month period prior to June 2007 CAM had already issued well in excess of 100 Bank Guarantees with a value of 4.1 million Euros to other Finca Parcs buyers, not subject to this action, before a single entry was made in the Special Account that was opened in November 2005.

Finca Parcs Action Group Co-ordinator, Keith Rule says:

“As a result of opening the Special Account CAM must remain vigilant and ensure that all funds paid by buyers is entered into that account without deviation. CAM also has an obligation according to Spanish Law LEY 57/1968 to ensure that those funds are only used for the construction of the housing.

Furthermore CAM included clauses in its own ‘Contract of Guarantee Operations’ that are in direct contravention to the obligations imposed on financial institutions by LEY 57/1968. With regards to the operating of the ‘Special Account’ it is clear that there was absolutely no reliance by CAM on this account and that it performed a flagrant breach of its own contract. To compound its negligence CAM attempted to shift all responsibility exclusively onto the developer”.

APPEAL COURT SENTENCE

The Sentence issued on 11 April 2013 by the Albacete Appeal Court completely ratifies the First Instance Sentence and states:

“One need not look at the description of the fundamentals of the First Instance Sentence against the developer, Cleyton GES SL, since it has not been appealed by them”

The Appeal Sentence transcribes very broadly the following points from the First Instance Sentence:

“CAM argued that it was not bound by any legal relationship with the plaintiffs and that it did not provide Guarantees for the payments made by the plaintiffs in this action because the payments were made to ordinary current accounts. However the relationship here was not regulated only by Article 1822 of the Civil Code but a guarantee of special nature governed by LEY 57/1968 aimed especially to ensure the inalienable rights of buyers of off-plan properties”

“Although it was agreed between CAM & Cleyton GES that the buyers payments should be entered in the special account and that the payments by the plaintiffs were not deposited mainly in that account, but in two ordinary accounts, the truth is that CAM issued guarantees to other buyers for funds paid to and held in the same ordinary accounts and described those accounts as ‘special’ on those corresponding guarantees”

“CAM knew perfectly well that the payments by the plaintiffs into the ordinary current accounts were payments by buyers in an off-plan property development in which it had assumed the role of guarantor under the law, LEY 57/1968”

The Appeal Court Sentence continues:

“The appellant, Banco CAM, was not happy with the reasoning of the First Instance Sentence.

All of the appellants argument revolves around the clauses contained in the ‘Contract of Guarantee Operations’ concluded between Itself and Cleyton GES SL whereby its obligation to guarantee the repayment of the amounts paid on account by the buyers of homes promoted by the co-defendant was not ‘automatic’, but that it depended on the timely request from Cleyton GES to formulate each of the individual guarantees together with a copy of each purchase contract and ensuring the funds were paid to the Special Account.

The appellants ‘Contract of Guarantee Operations’ does not comply with the provisions of LEY 57/1968 and introduces a number of conditions that could result in the amounts paid by buyers not being guaranteed. These conditions included the notification of the Purchase Contract by Cleyton GES, the entry to the Special Account of the buyers deposit payments and also most importantly the ‘the positive rating’ by the Bank.

Put another way, the appellant Bank provided a way for Cleyton GES SL to give the appearance of fulfilling the Law, and thus buyers generated the belief that by making payments to the account, the eventual return of those funds was supported automatically when in fact the existence of the guarantee was subject to various conditions, among which was one that depended on the will of the Bank. Such clauses, which contravene the provisions of the Law, must not be used against the plaintiffs, for indeed they pose a loss of rights that Article 7 of LEY 57/1968 deems as ‘indispensible’.

In a similar sense various rulings of the Supreme Court state that buyers cannot be harmed by clauses that contradict LEY 57/1968 or the lack of harmony or proper relations between the bank and developer, since the buyers who merely fulfilled their contractual obligations are not involved in the formulating or signing of the aforementioned warranty contract.

The existence of the guarantee referred to in Article 1 of LEY 57/1968 is not dependent on the amounts being deposited in a Special Account or communication to the bank of the realization of the sale, much less for the approval or positive rating of the Bank. The law refers to the amounts being paid to a bank or savings bank and adds that the amounts must be deposited in a Special Account, but that does not mean that the buyer is obliged to admit the funds to the special account.

The appellant was the guarantor bank of the promotion and the bank to which all buyers off-plan deposits were paid. Not only did CAM issue guarantees to other buyers, not subject to this action, for amounts paid to accounts other than the ‘Special Account’ but the bank also described those other accounts as ‘Special Accounts’ on the guarantee documents issued to those other buyers.

It follows therefore, that the refusal by the defendant Bank to endorse the payments of the plaintiffs is arbitrary and not in accordance with the Law as it has not always considered it essential that the payment was made to the Special Account.

And the defendant Bank inferred that it was a seemingly inexplicable practice of Cleyton GES SL to provide its clients with a non-special account number in which to make its payments, however the Bank did not give importance to the account into which the payments were made as it issued many guarantees to other buyers where the payments were made to the same ordinary accounts to which the plaintiffs paid.

With regards to the need for Cleyton GES to seek each individual guarantee, although we have already stated that this contravenes the Law, we must add that in practice it was purely formal. We can see from evidence provided that the dates of the guarantees issued to other buyers and the dates of those applications coincide, which means that the process was not firstly a request, then studied by the relevant departments of the Bank, then to be approved and then to issue the guarantees. In fact the issuing of the guarantee and the request for guarantee were simultaneous”.

The Appeal Court Sentence concludes:

“For all these reasons, and for the reasons stated in the decision appealed against, the appeal should be dismissed and the costs against the appellant”.

“We dismiss the appeal filed by the representation of BANCO CAM S.L.U. against the sentence of 8 June 2012 in Ordinary Procedure 182/11 issued by the Judge of the First Instance Court No.2 of Hellín. We CONFIRM that decision and order the appellant (BANCO CAM S.L.U.) to pay the costs of this appeal”.

CONFIDENCE

Keith Rule, Co-ordinator of the Finca Parcs Action Group says;

“We always believed that we had a very strong first Instance Sentence and that our opposition to CAM’s Appeal included a significant amount of Case Law on the issue of banks liabilities according to Spanish Law, LEY 57/1968.

This appeal court decision could not be any better. It totally dismisses the CAM Bank appeal, upholds the First Instance Sentence in full and imposes all costs of the Appeal on the Bank.

Our group members are elated at the significance of this Appeal Court decision. Justice has prevailed”

María de Castro, Director of Costa Luz Lawyers comments:

“The Appeal Court Sentence is an excellent example of how Judges in Spain are teaching Banks to treat people.

It follows the Supreme Court Interpretation of the inalienable rights of buyers according to LEY 57/1968.

It is a positive sign of the good health of Spanish Law and the judicial system, which puts balance on the wild behaviour of financial entities. A pro-consumer Court Decision”

BEHAVIOUR OF THE BANKS

With regards to the behaviour of the Banks in cases such as this, Keith says:

“It has now been established by two Courts that CAM Bank attempted to harm the buyers by the use of a ‘Contract of Guarantee Operations’ between itself and the developer that contained several abusive clauses that contradict the requirements of LEY 57/1968. CAM exhibited a total lack of professional due diligence, flagrantly violated its own Contract with the developer and systematically and repeatedly violated the obligations imposed on financial entities by LEY 57/1968.

We complied with each and every one of our contractual obligations and we as buyers have no control over the relationship between the Bank and Developer; therefore we cannot be prejudiced or harmed by deficiencies in the contract or in the relationship between bank and developer.

As a financial institution CAM Bank is fully aware of the obligations imposed on financial entities by LEY 57/1968, however it was instrumental in creating and endorsing the violations against that Law during the period 2004 to 2010 in collaboration with the co-defendant.

After initially chasing the developer for our Bank Guarantees we first contacted CAM Bank in July 2008 and on a number of occasions after that by multiple means including the submission of a 100 page dossier of evidence. Yet throughout the legal process CAM continued its attempt to avoid complying with its legal obligations by maintaining that is was oblivious to the payments we made to the developers accounts at its branches.

Our long term beliefs regarding the liability of banks have now been substantiated and this Appeal Court decision is now evidence that there has always been substance to our views and opinions in cases such as this”

LANDMARK APPEAL DECISION CAN NOW BE USED AS CASE LAW BY OTHER OFF-PLAN VICTIMS

Lawyers representing other buyers of off-plan property in Spain who were not issued with the legally required Bank Guarantees to protect their deposits can now use this Appeal Court Decision as Case Law to strengthen legal arguments in their own cases.

Keith says;

“There has always been great interest in our Finca Parcs case from other buyers of off-plan property in Spain who did not receive the legally required Bank Guarantees many of whom have their life savings at risk. We have always believed that according to LEY 57/1968 banks have a liability in these types of cases. Together with our legal team we have worked tirelessly since 2008 to highlight this issue in the media and to the Spanish & British Governments. That belief and hard work is now backed up by two very strong sentences from the Hellín First Instance Court and the Albacete Appeal Court which is now Case Law”

RETURN OF THE MONEY

In July 2012 the group’s legal team provisionally enforced the First Instance Sentence against both defendants and this resulted in CAM Bank paying the funds to the Court Bank Account. As a result the enforcement process should now be concluded in a timely manner by the Court and the funds will be released to the group via the legal team. Initially this will be the principal amount of each group members deposit and interest and costs will follow when the case is ‘firm’.

SUPREME COURT

CAM Bank has the right under Spanish Law to file a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court and this must be done within 20 working days from the date of notification of the Appeal Court Sentence. If after 20 working days no Supreme Court appeal has been filed by the Bank then the case is ‘firm’ against both defendants.

Group Lawyer, Jaime de Castro comments:

“I would say that although a cassation appeal is possible the Banks chances of success are now reduced to less than 5% according to the statistics. The decision is technically sound and the given facts cannot be challenged in a cassation appeal, only the legal grounds of the decision”

CAM BANK FAIL TO DEFEND SECOND GROUP LAWSUIT

In December 2012 Finca Parcs Action Group filed a second Lawsuit against the developer Cleyton GES SL and CAM Bank for another 13 group members who were not members of the group at the time Lawsuit 1 was filed in February 2011. This second Lawsuit was admitted into procedure at the First Instance Court in Hellín on 2 January 2013.

The value of deposits claimed by the 13 buyers in the second Lawsuit is just under 500,000 Euros.

CAM Bank had a deadline of 13 March to submit a defence to this Lawsuit.

We can now confirm that no defence was filed by CAM Bank to this second group Lawsuit.

Therefore, in the absence of any defence from the Bank the First Instance Court in Hellín will set a date for the Preliminary Hearing with a full trial to follow thereafter should a settlement not be reached in the meantime.

VICTORY FOR FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP IN THE ALBACETE APPEAL COURT

2013-04-11T12:29:56

FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP - LAWSUIT 1 – UPDATE – 11 APRIL 2013

Justice has prevailed. We have won in the Albacete Appeal Court with a sentence totally dismissing the Banco CAM Appeal.

Here is a translation of the final paragraph of the Appeal Court Sentence:

AUDIENCIA PROVINCIAL DE ALBACETE SECCIÓN PRIMERA

Apelación Civil 272/12

SENTENCIA NUM. 76

IN THE NAME OF THE KING

In Albacete 11 April 2013

DECISION

We dismiss the appeal filed by the representation of BANCO CAM S.LU. against the judgment of 8 June 2012 in ordinary procedure 182/11 issued by the Lady Judge of the First Instance Court No. 2 of Hellin. We CONFIRM that decision and order the appellant (BANCO CAM S.L.U.) to pay the costs of this appeal.

Congratulations to all!!!!

Kind regards

Keith
Finca Parcs Action Group (FPAG)

The Supreme Court Annuls Ground Clauses (Cláusulas Suelo) in Mortgages where there is 'Lack of Transparency'

2013-03-20T20:25:03

The First Chamber of the Supreme Court, meeting in plenary session, declared the nullity of ground clauses in cases of lack of transparency, for example, when there is not enough information given to customers at the time of advancing the mortgage. However, the decision of the Supreme Court does not provide automatically for a refund of the amounts that have been overpaid.

El Supremo anula las cláusulas suelo de las hipotecas si no se informó al cliente

20/03/2013 By Redaccion

La Sala Primera del Tribunal Supremo, reunida en pleno, ha declarado la nulidad de las cláusulas suelo en los casos de falta de transparencia, es decir, cuando no se haya dado la información suficiente a los clientes a la hora de contratar la hipoteca. Sin embargo, la decisión del TS no prevé la devolución de las cantidades que ya han sido satisfechas de más.

El alto tribunal también deja claro que este pronunciamiento no implica la nulidad de las cláusulas suelo cuando sí se cumplan los requisitos de transparencia respecto de los consumidores. Se trata, en cualquier caso, de una sentencia que senta jurisprudencia sobre los límites a los descensos del euríbor.

El caso resuelto por el TS responde a una acción colectiva de cesación contra la cláusula suelo que presentó la Asociación de Usuarios de Servicios Bancarios (AUSBANC) ante el Juzgado de lo mercantilo 2 de Sevilla, a la que también se adhirió el Ministerio Fiscal.

Esta fue estimada inicialmente, cuando el juez del juzgado mercantil anuló las cláusulas por abusivas y prohibió a las tres entidades financieras demandadas, BBVA, Novacaixagalicia y Cajamar, su utilización en un futuro. Sin embargo, la decisión fué contradecida posteriormente por la Audiencia Provincial , por lo que AUSBANC y el Ministerio Fiscal interpusieron el recurso de casación ante el Tribunal Supremo, cuyo fallo ha sido notificado hoy.

Tal y como explica el abogado de Sanahuja & Miranda José María Peyra, en un artículo de opinión publicado en este diario, la cláusula suelo de una hipoteca es la “estipulación que establece un tipo mínimo de interés que el hipotecado deberá de pagar en todo caso, aun cuando el Euribor más el referencial pactado, caigan por debajo de dicho tipo de interés”.

Dicho de otra manera, se establece un suelo o interés mínimo que el hipotecado siempre deberá pagar, con independencia de la evolución del índice de referencia hasta el vencimiento y cancelación de toda la hipoteca. Ello ha provocado que muchos usuarios con créditos a tipo variable referenciados a este índice no hayan podido beneficiarse del descenso que el euribor ha registrado desde julio de 2011, y ademas, sin haber sido informados de ello en el momento de contratar la hipoteca, lo que el Supremo ha considerado que tiene carácter abusivo.

RTN - Anxious wait over CAM appeal

2013-03-07T18:30:30

ROUND TOWN NEWS - 07 March 2013 Written by Jack Troughton

Anxious wait over CAM appeal

OFF-PLAN HOME buyers left without ‘Bank Guarantee’ protection of their investment are anxiously waiting an imminent court judgement in a “landmark” test case.

An action group of buyers successfully won its case against a shamed Spanish bank in a Spanish court last May. However Cam Bank appealed the decision.

The appeal was decided this week by Albacete Appeal Court. The judgement will be announced by the end of March – although the court has a record of early notification.

The case, which has aroused massive public and media interest, surrounds 47 buyers losing 1.5 million euros after CAM failed to issue guarantees to cover deposits for the Las Higuericas Finca Parcs development near Hellin, close to the border with Murcia.

Last June the court at Hellin found in favour of the Finca Parcs Action Group and the bank was described by the judge as being guilty of “banking malpractice” for its failure to protect buyers’ cash after the bank – now Sabadell CAM – and the developer were found ‘jointly and severally’ liable.

CAM and developer Cleyton GES SL were ordered to return deposits to the purchasers and pay interest and costs. The bank paid the full amount into court last August but lodged an appeal.

CONFIDENT

Finca Parcs Action Group coordinator told Round Town News he and the legal team remained confident the bank’s appeal would be dismissed and the original sentence would be upheld.

“I am confident. We have so much evidence against CAM, such a strong sentence from the First Instance Court at Hellin, and ever increasing case law against the banks,” he said.

CAM continues to argue it was not responsible for the situation and all irregularities and illegalities were committed by the developer.

But Keith said the case had become important for all off-plan buyers who failed to get the protection that was legally required under Spanish law because it would become a precedent for similar cases.

“There remains great interest in our Finca Parcs case from other buyers of off-plan property in Spain who did not receive the legally required Bank Guarantees, many of whom have their life savings at risk,” he said.

“We have always believed that according to the law, banks have a liability in these types of cases. We have worked tirelessly since 2008 to highlight this issue in the media and with the Spanish and British governments.”

APPEAL

He added: “We are confident that this month our landmark case will be upheld by the Albacete Appeal Court.”

The action group has already lodged a second action against CAM and Cleyton GES. The case involves another 13 buyers at Finca Parcs and a further 500,000€ in lost deposits.

Keith explained the 13 purchasers had not been members of the group when the first lawsuit was filed in February 2011 but was admitted into Hellin Courts in January and served on both defendants.

He said CAM and Cleyton GES must now submit their defence to the second lawsuit to the court with the prospect of another trial unless a settlement could be reached.

“The second lawsuit is even stronger than the first as it incorporates all the additional evidence that we gained through the original trial,” said Keith.

“I really cannot see how CAM will even be able to defend it – the bank must file a defence by 13th March – I am very much looking forward to reading it.”

PRESS RELEASE - FINCA PARCS - APPEAL SENTENCE DUE MARCH 2013

2013-02-27T15:32:28

PRESS / MEDIA RELEASE - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – 27 FEBRUARY 2013

FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP vs CAJA DE AHORROS DEL MEDITERRÁNEO (CAM BANK) & SPANISH PROPERTY DEVELOPER, CLEYTON GES SL

ALBACETE APPEAL COURT DECISION DUE IN MARCH & SECOND LAWSUIT FILED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE COURT

● 12 January 2012 - First Instance Court Preliminary Hearing
● 21 & 22 May 2012 - Trial held in First Instance Court - Hellín

● 8 June 2012 - Judgment released in favour of Finca Parcs Action Group
● CAM Bank and Cleyton GES SL sentenced to return deposits amounting to almost 1.5
    million Euros to the buyers with the addition of legal interest and costs
● July 2012 - CAM Bank appeals the First Instance Court Judgment
● July 2012 - Finca Parcs Action Group submits Opposition to the CAM Appeal
● July 2012 - Finca Parcs Action Group file Provisional Enforcement Order to the Court
● August 2012 – CAM Bank pays full amount of deposits plus legal interest and costs
    to the Court
● Appeal to be heard by the Albacete Appeal Court
● Appeal to be decided on 4 March 2013
● Appeal decision will be announced by the end of March 2013

APPEAL BY CAM BANK (BANCO SABADELL)

Following the Finca Parcs trial in May 2012 involving 47 buyers at the Las Higuericas Finca Parcs development near Murcia, Spanish property developer Cleyton GES SL and CAM Bank (now SabadellCAM) were sentenced ‘jointly and severally’ liable by the First Instance Court to repay in full the off-plan deposits amounting to just under 1.5 million Euros paid by members of the Finca Parcs Action Group plus in terest and costs. Cleyton GES SL did not appeal the First Instance Court Judgment; however CAM Bank did Appeal.

APPEAL DECISION TO BE ANNOUNCED MARCH 2013

The Albacete Appeal Court Magistrates will make their decision on the CAM Bank Appeal on 4 March 2013. The decision will be notified to all parties by the end of March 2013.

CONFIDENCE

Coordinator of the Finca Parcs Action Group, Keith Rule says that both he and their legal team at Costa Luz Lawyers/De Castro remain confident that the appeal court will dismiss CAM’s appeal and uphold the First Instance Court sentence in full.

He says;

“We have a very strong First Instance Sentence and our opposition to CAM’s Appeal included a significant amount of Case Law on the issue of banks liabilities according to Spanish Law, LEY 57/1968. The number of examples of Case Law confirming the responsibilities and obligations of the banks according to LEY 57/1968 is increasing each month”

Despite its actions being described by the First Instance Judge as ‘banking malpractice’ CAM Bank continues to maintain that it is not responsible for the situation and that all irregular actions and illegalities were committed only by the developer.

APPEAL DECISION EAGERLY AWAITED BY OTHER OFF-PLAN VICTIMS

Other buyers of off-plan property in Spain who were not issued with the legally required Bank Guarantees to protect their deposits are awaiting the outcome of this case with interest as an Appeal Court decision can be used as a Case Law precedent in other similar cases.

Keith says;

“There remains great interest in our Finca Parcs case from other buyers of off-plan property in Spain who did not receive the legally required Bank Guarantees many of whom have their life savings at risk. We have always believed that according to LEY 57/1968 banks have a liability in these types of cases. We have worked tirelessly since 2008 to highlight this issue in the media and to the Spanish & British Governments.

Keith concludes;

“We are confident that in March our landmark First Instance Sentence against CAM Bank will be upheld in full by the Albacete Appeal Court”

SECOND LAWSUIT FILED ON BEHALF OF 13 MORE GROUP MEMBERS

In December 2012 Finca Parcs Action Group filed a second Lawsuit against the developer Cleyton GES SL and CAM Bank for another 13 group members who were not members of the group at the time Lawsuit 1 was filed in February 2011. This second Lawsuit was admitted into procedure at the First Instance Court in Hellín on 2 January 2013 and was recently served on both defendants.

The value of deposits claimed by the 13 buyers in the second Lawsuit is just under 500,000 Euros.

CAM Bank & Cleyton GES must now submit their defence to the second Lawsuit and then the First Instance Court in Hellín will set a date for the Preliminary Hearing with a full trial to follow thereafter should a settlement not be reached in the meantime.

LEY 57/1968 - APPEAL COURT RULING AGAINST A BANK

2012-12-28T22:09:08

AUDIÈNCIA PROVINCIAL DE LLEIDA - 17 OCTOBER 2012
LEY 57/1968 - APPEAL COURT DECISION RULING AGAINST THE BANK - BANCO MARE NOSTRUM:

This is an excellent decision. It is very similar to the Finca Parcs case in which CAM knowingly accepted off-plan deposit funds and failed to issue or verify the existence of the corresponding Guarantees.

Banco Mare Nostrum provided very similar arguments to CAM in the Finca Parcs case:

Banco Mare Nostrum argued: “The bank cannot force the developer (their client) to open a Special Account nor can it prevent the developer from receiving income for off-plan purchases into the normal current account. It cannot control the purpose for which those funds are used. It does not have an obligation to advise homebuyers on the provisions of LEY 57/1968. It considers that the director of a Bank is not required to meet the obligations set out in LEY 57/1968”

But the Magistrate thought otherwise:

“The appeal first requires us to determine the content, target and scope of the obligations of LEY 57/1968”

“It is clear, therefore, that this Law establishes two obligations on the sellers of homes under construction. These obligations are first, to open a special account in a financial institution where you only enter the prepayments received from buyers and which can only be used to meet the costs arising from the construction of housing. Secondly, it must provide the buyer with a bond in the form of a guarantee given by a financial institution or an insurance certificate from a registered insurance company to enable the buyer to claim a refund should the housing not be delivered within the contractually stipulated time. Banco Mare Nostrum considers that these obligations are only the responsibility of the developer/promoter”.

The Magistrate continues:

“Now, if you perform a careful reading of the Law you can easily see that it also establishes an obligation for financial institutions, since it has a prerequisite for the seller (promoter) to open the special account referred to in Article 1 for which there must be an endorsement or insurance certificate guaranteeing repayment of the amounts received from buyers and it is the financial institution that must comply with this obligation because the precept has mentioned that ‘For the opening of these accounts or deposits the bank or savings bank under its responsibility must require the guarantee referred to in the previous condition’”

“Consequently, the bank is ultimately responsible for the establishment of the guarantee or insurance, so it should require its constitution as a prerequisite to opening the Special Account by Law. Failure to open the special account and the lack of guarantee or insurance affects the legal liability of the financial institution. Here appears the first breach of duty of care by Caixa Penedés (Banco Mare Nostrum), which argues that the director of its office is not required to know LEY 57/68 or the obligations established therein, because, as you can see, Article 1 lays down obligations which are directed at financial institutions”.

“In this case the seller (promoter) also took a mortgage with Caixa Penedés (Banco Mare Nostrum) to finance the property development in which a house was sold to the plaintiffs. The Bank Branch Director knew that during the construction phase some homes were sold and had seen one of the private contracts of sale. He also knew that the buyers were the plaintiffs in this case. He knew that the payment made by the buyers in his branch to the developers account in his branch was precisely to make the first payment of the house purchase. It is evident, therefore, that in this case ignorance of the law is not excusable, nor can the defendant bank justify escaping its legally established liability on the simple basis that it was the developer that failed to open the Special Account”.

“The Bank attempted to avoid a legally established obligation which is an attitude that borders on fraud of the Law. The Bank displayed a total inaction in this case, without which the harmful outcome for the plaintiffs would not have occurred because if the Bank had acted in accordance with the Law the buyers could have at least been able to recover the money advanced through the legally established guarantees. The alleged ignorance of the Law on behalf of the Bank is inexcusable”.

“One must take into account that Article 7 of LEY 57/68 grants rights to the buyers which are inalienable”.

The Sentence revokes the judgment of the First Instance Court No. 5 of Lleida and instead condemns the Bank to refund to the buyers the deposit amount of 61,471.50€ plus statutory interest less any amount that can be recovered by the buyers through the bankruptcy proceedings of the developer Habitatges Roure-Arnó.

The Bank is also condemned to pay the costs of the First Instance Trial.

This is an excellent Judgment that has many similarities to the Finca Parcs case.

TRAMPOLIN - A MONUMENTAL FRAUD

2012-12-10T10:33:41

ARTICLE FROM LA VERDAD – 9 DEC 2012:

TRAMPOLIN HILLS

1507 POTENTIAL VICTIMS

VALUE OF FRAUD - APPROX 62 MILLION EUROS

VICTIMS FROM 34 SPANISH PROVINCES AND 6 EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

ILLEGAL AND WORTHLESS BANK GUARANTEES ISSUED BY SWISS FINANCIAL CORPORATION WITH HEAD OFFICE IN PANAMA - NOT LICENCED TO OPERATE IN SPAIN.

WHAT ABOUT THE BANKS THAT ACCEPTED THE OFF-PLAN DEPOSITS?

THEY HAD AN OBLIGATION ACCORDING TO LEY 57/1968 TO ISSUE OR TO VERIFY THE EXISTENCE OF THE CORRESPONDING BANK GUARANTEES….THEY DID NEITHER.

THE BANKS CLEARLY COLLABORATED WITH THE DEVELOPER…..See my article from 2010 – it was not written specifically about Trampolin Hills, but it is typical of what so many banks & developers did to unsuspecting and innocent victims:

www.bankguaranteesinspain.com/truth.htm

www.bankguaranteesinspain.com/verdad.htm

Más de 40 alicantinos reclaman 1,4 millones por una estafa inmobiliaria

El monumental fraude en dos urbanizaciones fantasma en la Región de Murcia deja atrapados también a otro medio centenar de clientes valencianos

09.12.12 - 01:43 – LA VERDAD | MURCIA/ALICANTE.

LAS CIFRAS

1.507 Potenciales perjudicados figuran en la causa

62 Millones de euros ronda el montante total del fraude

34 Provincias españolas y 6 países europeos albergan a las víctimas de Trampolín Hills

Cerca de un centenar de ciudadanos de la Comunitat Valenciana se ha personado en la investigación judicial de la monumental estafa supuestamente cometida por los administradores de las sociedades Trampolín Hills Golf Resort y Trampolín Royal Dream en la Región de Murcia. Entre los 1.507 potenciales afectados figuran al menos 44 clientes de la provincia de Alicante, que han perdido en su conjunto 1.375.1282 euros que invirtieron para la compra de viviendas en dos urbanizaciones que nunca llegaron a construirse en las localidades de Campos del Río y Albudeite. El listado de víctimas personadas en las diligencias, al que ha tenido acceso este diario, incluye también a 49 residentes en la provincia de Valencia cuyas pérdidas ascienden a casi 1,2 millones en total.

Muchos de los estafados, de los que 500 ejercen ya la acusación particular contra los sospechosos, proceden de seis países europeos (Alemania, Bélgica, Irlanda, Noruega, Francia e Inglaterra). Los demás son españoles que están distribuidos por 34 provincias. El montante del fraude puede superar los 62 millones de euros.

Todas esas cifras están recogidas en el auto por el que el titular del Juzgado de Instrucción número 2 de Mula (Murcia), Miguel Ángel Comesaña Álvarez, acaba de remitir las actuaciones a la Audiencia Nacional, al considerar que debe ser este órgano el que asuma la investigación dada su envergadura.

Cinco años de pesquisas

El magistrado, que ha tramitado las denuncias durante cinco años, basa su decisión en virtud «del extraordinario número de afectados y de su dispersión geográfica, la magnitud de los perjuicios y la complejidad de los hechos investigados, que implican aspectos de naturaleza mercantil, urbanística, contable y de regulación transfronteriza».

Por esta estafa están imputados entre otros los administradores de las sociedades Trampolín Hills y Trampolín Royal, Antonio Martínez González, más conocido como 'Antonio el Gitano', y Rafael Aguilera Serna, así como el actual alcalde y el anterior de Campos del Río, Miguel Navarro y Ricardo Valverde, respectivamente.

Los promotores impulsaron sendas urbanizaciones de 2.570 y 350 viviendas en ese municipio y Albudeite, en la comarca murciana del Río Mula, que nunca llegaron a construirse. Los sospechosos recibieron ingentes cantidades de dinero que garantizaron con avales falsos o ficticios, según el juez.

El primero de los proyectos urbanísticos fue el iniciado por Trampolín Hills Golf Resort después de que una sociedad «hermana», Solera El Trampolín, hubiera adquirido unos extensos terrenos en el paraje de El Barril de Abajo, en Campos del Río.

Allí pretendía promover, en apariencia, 2.570 viviendas y un campo de golf, para lo cual el 31 de mayo de 2005 suscribió un convenio urbanístico con el Ayuntamiento. El 16 de marzo de 2006 firmó otro convenio que ampliaba la superficie edificable de 1,2 millones de metros cuadrados a 2,6 millones, pese a que la mercantil solo era propietaria del 92,32% de los terrenos y de que respecto de algunos solo tenía una opción de compra.

Esa superficie nunca se llegó a recalificar, pues la Consejería de Obras Públicas, Vivienda y Transportes de la Región de Murcia declaró la inviabilidad del plan porque presentaba deficiencias referidas a los recursos hídricos y al impacto ambiental.

Pese a todos los inconvenientes señalados, la empresa realizó entre marzo de 2005 y el año 2008 «una amplia campaña publicitaria a través de Internet y de oficinas y agencias inmobiliarias para la venta de viviendas». Cientos de compradores de toda España y de varios países europeos, sobre todo de Gran Bretaña, comenzaron a adquirir viviendas, por las que abonaban entre 3.000 y 6.000 euros en concepto de reserva y entre 18.000 y 30.000 a la firma del contrato.

Algunas de las víctimas de la provincia de Alicante fueron captadas a través de la agencia inmobiliaria Creditofacil Aldecasa S.L., domiciliada en Elche. Sus responsables también cayeron en el engaño, pues adquirieron en nombre propio diecisiete viviendas de la promoción.

En los contratos de compraventa se informaba de la situación administrativa en la que se encontraba el plan parcial pero dicha información «era engañosa», según afirma el juez en su auto, ya que se daba por supuesta la propiedad de Trampolín Hills sobre todos los terrenos, cuando sobre una parte solo tenía una opción de compra, al tiempo que daba por segura la recalificación del suelo y la la concesión de la correspondiente licencia».

Los promotores también vulneraron la Ley 57/1968 sobre Percepciones de Cantidades Anticipadas, que obliga a garantizar la devolución de las entregas a cuenta mediante un contrato de seguro o un aval solidario en previsión de que las viviendas no se lleguen a construir y a que los fondos sean ingresados en una cuenta bancaria especial y que solo se pueda disponer de ellos para atender a gastos de las obras.

Fines particulares

Antonio Martínez y Rafael Aguilera ingresaron el dinero en cuentas corrientes ordinarias de La Caixa, CAM y Cajamar, de modo que obtuvieron «una financiación gratuita sin acceder a créditos bancarios y sin que se hubiera llegado a construir nada más que un edificio de oficinas y cuatro viviendas piloto», señala el auto. O bien destinaron esos cientos de miles de euros a fines particulares.

En Albudeite sucedió prácticamente lo mismo. El 25 de septiembre de 2006, la sociedad Solera el Trampolín firmó un convenio urbanístico con el Ayuntamiento de esa localidad para la recalificación de 244.000 metros cuadrados, en los que pretendía construir 350 viviendas y un campo de golf.

El plan quedó paralizado por incumplimientos contractuales de la propia promotora. Sin embargo, ésta realizó una campaña publicitaria durante 2007 para captar clientes. Unos 80 cayeron en el engaño.

Una entidad suiza con sede en Panamá

09.12.12 - 01:39 – LA VERDAD - RICARDO FERNÁNDEZ | MURCIA.

Si las cuentas no estaban protegidas conforme a la ley, lo de los avales era todavía peor. En muchos contratos se ofreció un «aval empresarial» otorgado por la propia sociedad Trampolín Hills o por Solera El Trampolín pese a que ambas tenían un capital social de 3.000 euros y, por ello, ofrecían «un ínfimo respaldo», por no decir ninguno. «Dicha garantía era una mera ficción tendente a crear una apariencia de solvencia y a captar la confianza de los compradores para que entregaran las cantidades», según el juez.

Cuando una inmobiliaria que había adquirido 17 viviendas exigió mayores garantías, los administradores de Trampolín Hills suscribieron en septiembre de 2006 una póliza de afianzamiento colectivo con Swiss Financial Corporation S.L., que ya apareció en la inmensa mayoría de los contratos ulteriores, que fueron cientos.

Esta mercantil aseguraba tener oficinas en Sevilla y su domicilio social en Luxemburgo, cuando lo cierto es que tenía su sede en Panamá. Además, no estaba autorizada a operar en España ni por la Dirección General de Seguros ni está inscrita en los registros del Banco de España, por lo que tales avales eran simplemente papel mojado.

Para el titular del Juzgado de Instrucción 2 de Mula, Miguel Ángel Comesaña, existe una «innegable conexión» entre la estafa de la urbanización de Campos del Río y la perpetrada supuestamente con la de Albudeite.

Los contratos tenían idénticas estipulaciones e incluso la misma referencia al modelo de vivienda (»Macarena»). También se acompañaban del aval de Swiss Financial Corporation como garantía.

FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP - APPEAL COURT DECISION DUE IN MARCH 2013

2012-10-11T23:28:32

PRESS / MEDIA RELEASE - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – 10 OCTOBER 2012

FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP vs CAJA DE AHORROS DEL MEDITERRÁNEO (CAM BANK) & SPANISH DEVELOPER, CLEYTON GES SL

APPEAL COURT DECISION DUE IN MARCH 2013

FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP – TIMELINE OF THE LEGAL ACTION

● 2006 - No legally required Bank Guarantees for Off-Plan deposits totalling 1.5 million
Euros
● February 2011 - Lawsuit against CAM Bank & developer Cleyton GES SL filed to Court

● 12 January 2012 - First Instance Court Preliminary Hearing
● 21 & 22 May 2012 - Trial held in First Instance Court - Hellín

● 8 June 2012 - Judgment released in favour of Finca Parcs Action Group
● CAM Bank and Cleyton GES SL sentenced to return deposits amounting to almost 1.5
    million Euros to the buyers with the addition of legal interest and costs
● July 2012 - CAM Bank appeals the First Instance Court Judgment
● July 2012 - Finca Parcs Action Group submits Opposition to the CAM Appeal
● July 2012 - Finca Parcs Action Group file Provisional Enforcement Order to the Court
● August 2012 – CAM Bank pays full amount of deposits plus legal interest and costs
    to the Court
● Appeal to be heard by the Albacete Appeal Court
● Appeal to be decided on 4 March 2013
● Appeal decision will be announced by the end of March 2013

APPEAL BY CAM BANK

Following the Finca Parcs trial in May of this year involving 47 buyers at the Las Higuericas Finca Parcs development near Murcia, Spanish property developer Cleyton GES SL and CAM Bank (now SabadellCAM) were sentenced jointly and severally by the First Instance Court to repay in full the off-plan deposits paid by members of the Finca Parcs Action Group plus in terest and costs. Cleyton GES SL did not appeal the First Instance Court Judgment; however CAM Bank did Appeal.

DATE ANNOUNCED FOR APPEAL DECISION

Finca Parcs Action Group filed their Opposition to the CAM Bank Appeal and the Appeal was admitted into the Albacete Appeal Court on 3 September 2012.

4 March 2013 is the date that has recently been announced by the Court as the day that the Appeal Court Magistrates will make their decision. The decision will be notified to all parties by the end of March 2013.

Coordinator of the Finca Parcs Action Group, Keith Rule explains;

“Three magistrates from the Albacete Appeal Court have been appointed to this case and will preside over the Appeal. They will make their decision on 4 March 2013. The decision will be released and notified to all parties by the end of March 2013 at the latest”.

CONFIDENCE

Keith says that both he and their legal team are very confident that the appeal court will dismiss CAM’s appeal and uphold the First Instance Court sentence in full.

He says;

“We have a very strong First Instance Sentence and our opposition to CAM’s Appeal included a significant amount of Case Law on the issue of banks liabilities according to Spanish Law, LEY 57/1968”

Jaime de Castro, Lawyer for the Finca Parcs Action Group comments;

“The most important steps have been taken and I have confidence that we will win primarily by the strength of the First Instance judgment and due to the number of favourable case law examples that already exist today which outline the responsibilities and obligations of the banks with respect to buyers who have large sums of money at risk on these off-plan purchases, all in accordance with Law 57/68”

Maria de Castro, Director of Costa Luz Lawyers, one of the two legal teams that have been working on this and other similar cases over the past 4 years adds;

"We are confident that the correct and accurate interpretation of Law 57/68 by the courts will be of interest to many people and families who bought off plan and are currently affected by similar problems. We look forward to the Albacete Appeal Court Judgment due next March”.

Despite its actions being described by the Judge as ‘banking malpractice’ CAM Bank continues to maintain that it is not responsible for the situation and that all irregular actions and illegalities were committed only by the developer.

APPEAL DECISION EAGERLY AWAITED BY OTHER OFF-PLAN VICTIMS

Other buyers of off-plan property in Spain who were not issued with the legally required bank guarantees to protect their deposits are awaiting the outcome of this case with interest as an Appeal Court decision can be used as a Case Law precedent in other similar cases.

Keith says;

“There is great interest in our Finca Parcs case from thousands of other off-plan buyers who did not receive the legally required Bank Guarantees many of whom have their life savings at risk. We have always believed that according to LEY 57/1968 banks have a liability in these types of cases. We have worked tirelessly since 2008 to highlight this issue in the media and amongst buyers of off-plan properties in Spain. As a result we are seeing successful judgments against Banks in other similar cases as victims of Bank Guarantee abuse begin to benefit from sentences now being released by many Courts.

Keith concludes;

“We are confident that in March our landmark First Instance Sentence against CAM Bank will be upheld in full by the Albacete Appeal Court”

FINCA PARCS GRUPO DE ACCIÓN - LA SENTENCIA DE APELACIÓN SE DICTARÁN EN MARZO DE 2013

2012-10-11T23:26:21

NOTA DE PRENSA – PARA PUBLICACIÓN INMEDIATA – 10 OCTOBER 2012

GRUPO DE AFECTADOS FINCA PARCS vs CAJA DE AHORROS DEL MEDITERRÁNEO (CAM BANK) & PROMOTOR ESPAÑOL, CLEYTON GES SL

LA SENTENCIA DE APELACIÓN SE DICTARÁN EN MARZO DE 2013

GRUPO DE ACCIÓN FINCA PARCS – CRONOLOGÍA DE LA ACCIÓN LEGAL

* No se emitieron las garantías que la Ley establece en un total de 1.5 millones de Euros
● La demanda contra la CAM y la promotora Cleyton Ges SL se interpuso en Febrero de 2011

● La Audiencia Previa se celebró el 12 de Enero de 2012
● El juicio se celebró los días 21 y 22 de Mayo de 2012

● La Sentencia a favor de Finca Parcs Grupo de Acción se dictó el viernes 8 de Junio de 2012
● CAM y Cleyton GES SL deben devolver cantidades que suman 1,5 millones de euros más intereses y costas.

● Julio de 2012 - La CAM apela la Sentencia de Primera Instancia
● Julio de 2012 - El grupo de acción Finca Parcs se opone a la apelación de la CAM
● Julio de 2012- El grupo de acción Finca Parcs insta la ejecución provisional de la Sentencia
● Agosto de 2012 – La CAM consigna el total de las cantidades más los intereses más las costas en el Juzgado
● La apelación se decidirá en la Audiencia Provincial de Albacete

* La audiencia provincial de Albacete se reúne para deliberación, votación y fallo el 4 de Marzo de 2013

* La sentencia de apelación se emitirá a finales de Marzo de 2013

APELACIÓN POR LA CAM

Después del juicio que se celebró en Mayo de este año en el que actuaron como demandantes 47 compradores de la promoción Las Higuericas Finca Parcs, cerca de Murcia, tanto la promotora CLEYTON GES SL como la CAM (ahora Sabadell CAM) fueron condenados a la devolución del total de las cantidades entregadas a cuenta por los miembros del grupo de acción Finca Parcs (FPAG) más intereses y costas. Cleyton GES SL no apeló la Sentencia de Primera Instancia; a diferencia de la CAM, que sí apeló.

FECHA PARA APELACIÓN

FPAG presentó su oposición al recurso de apelación de la CAM y la oposición se admitió por la Audiencia Provincial de Albacete el 3 de Septiembre de 2012.

Recientemente, se ha anunciado por la Audiencia que la fecha para deliberación, votación y fallo en el asunto de referencia es el 4 de Marzo de 2013. La Sentencia se notificará a todas las partes a finales de Marzo de 2013.

El coordinador del Grupo de Acción Finca Parcs explica:

“Tres magistrados de la Audiencia Provincial de Albacete se encargarán de deliberar, votar y fallar el caso. La fecha para ello es el próximo 4 de Marzo de 2013. La Sentencia se notificará a todas las partes antes del fin del mismo mes de Marzo 2013”

CONFIANZA

Keith manifiesta que tanto él como el equipo jurídico que le asesora tienen plena confianza en que la Audiencia rechazará los motivos de apelación de la CAM y confirmará la Sentencia de Primera Instancia en su totalidad.

Comenta Rule:

“Tenemos una Sentencia de Primera Instancia muy contundente y la oposición a la apelación que presentamos incluía asimismo una cantidad importante de referencias jurisprudenciales que avalan la responsabilidad de los Bancos en estos temas de acuerdo con la Ley 57/68”

Jaime de Castro, Abogado del FPAG, comentó:

“ Los pasos más importantes han sido dados y tengo confianza en que ganaremos principalmente por la solidez de la Sentencia de primera instancia y la cantidad de jurisprudencia favorable que ya existe a día de hoy en las que se destaca las responsabilidades y obligaciones de los Bancos respecto de la existencia de las debidas garantías al comprador que arriesga grandes sumas de dinero en estas compras sobre plano, todo de acuerdo con la Ley 57/68”

María de Castro, Director de Costa Luz Lawyers, uno de los dos despachos de abogados que llevan años trabajando juntos en este y otros casos similares durante los últimos cuatro años añade:

"Estamos seguros de que la correcta y precisa interpretación de la Ley 57/68 por parte de los tribunales será del interés de muchas personas y familias que compraron sobre plano y que en la actualidad están afectados por problemas muy similares. Esperamos con mucho interés la Sentencia de Apelación que saldrá en Marzo próximo”

A pesar de que la actuación de la CAM fue descrita por la Juez de Primera Instancia como de “mala práctica bancaria”, la CAM sigue manteniendo que no es responsable de la situación y de las ilegalidades e irregularidades cometidas solo por el promotor”

OTRAS MUCHOS COMPRADORES AFECTADOS POR EL MISMO PROBLEMA ESPERAN LA SENTENCIA CON GRAN EXPECTACIÓN

Otros muchos compradores de viviendas sobre plano a quienes no se le emitieron las debidas garantías a fin de proteger las cantidades que entregaron a cuenta esperan con mucho interés el fallo de la Audiencia Provincial de Albacete ya que supondría un precedente muy interesante para la defensa de sus propios casos:

En este sentido Keith manifestó:

“Nuestro caso es objeto de gran interés por parte de miles de compradores sobre plano que no recibieron las garantías que establece la ley 57/68 en protección de cantidades que, en muchos casos, suponen el ahorro de toda una vida. Siempre hemos creído y defendido que según la Ley 57/68 los bancos son responsables en este tipo de casos. Hemos trabajado sin descanso desde 2008 a fin de hacer valer esta postura frente a medios de comunicación y entre miles de compradores sobre plano en España. Como resultado de todo ello, tenemos la gran satisfacción de ver cada vez más Sentencias fallando en contra de los Bancos en estos bancos y a favor de estas personas afectadas”

Como conclusión Keith añadió:

“Tenemos mucha confianza que en Marzo nuestra Sentencia de Primera Instancia, que constituye un hito en este tipo de casos, será confirmada plenamente por la Audiencia Provincial de Albacete”

LAS HIGUERICAS FINCA PARCS - BUYER WINS AGAINST CAM BANK IN MURCIA APPEAL COURT

2012-10-11T22:49:17

A buyer at Las Higuericas, Finca Parcs has won an individual case against CAM Bank in the Appeal Court in Murcia.

I am extremely pleased for the buyer involved whose Lawsuit was filed in 2010 because on 18 May 2011 in the First Instance Court they won against Cleyton GES but most significantly they lost against CAM Bank. Their Lawyer then submitted a very good appeal and on 27 September 2012 the Murcia Appeal Court accepted the appeal and revoked the First Instance Court decision which had originally absolved CAM Bank of any liability.

Therefore CAM Bank must now refund the deposit to the buyer.

The buyer in this case did have a Bank Guarantee for the first instalment of their deposit but not for the second instalment. So this is slightly different to the majority of our group members who never received the legally required Bank Guarantees for any part of their deposit. In fact out of the 47 group members in our first group Lawsuit only 2 had received Bank Guarantees for part of their deposit payment.

In our second group Lawsuit we currently have 21 group members and 2 of those had Bank Guarantees for part of their deposit payment. So we have 64 of us who never received Bank Guarantees for any part of our deposit payment.

However, this decision dated 27 September 2012 from the Murcia Appeal Court Section 1 is still very significant. It is an Appeal Court decision and is Case Law. So this will certainly be considered by the Albacete Appeal Court Magistrates when they make their decision on the CAM Bank appeal in our group Lawsuit 1 case on 4 March 2013. It will also be of great benefit to our group Lawsuit 2 and to any Finca Parcs buyers represented by other Law Firms.

As you know, since 2008 I have always been of the opinion that the banks had a liability according to Spanish Law, LEY 57/1968, in particular Article 1.2. In fact when I first wrote to CAM Bank in 2008 I made exactly those points to them. Unfortunately at that time there were no Lawyers who agreed with my views. But 4 years on it is a very different situation and the legal opinion has changed and more importantly so has the legal interpretation of LEY 57/1968 by Judges and Magistrates.

I am elated at this decision against CAM Bank from the Murcia Appeal Court. Firstly it is absolutely fantastic news for the buyer concerned as their Finca Parcs nightmare is almost over…….they just have to wait for CAM comply with the Appeal Court decision and release the funds.

And……for those of us still seeking justice in the Finca Parcs nightmare this decision can only help us all.
It is also Case Law that can be used in other similar cases.

Many congratulations to the buyer involved and congratulations to Fuster & Associates!

Keith
FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP

NOTA DE PRENSA - LA CAM CONSIGNA LA TOTALIDAD DE LAS CANTIDADES

2012-08-10T15:10:28

NOTA DE PRENSA – PARA PUBLICACIÓN INMEDIATA – 10 DE AGOSTO DE 2012

GRUPO DE ACCIÓN FINCA PARCS VS CAJA DE AHORROS DEL MEDITERRÁNEO (CAM BANK) & PROMOTOR ESPAÑOL, CLEYTON GES SL

LA CAM DEBE DEVOLVER LAS CANTIDADES ENTREGADAS A CUENTA EN COMPRAVENTAS SOBRE PLANO POR DECISIÓN JUDICIAL

LA CAM CONSIGNA LA TOTALIDAD DE LAS CANTIDADES, LOS INTERESES Y LAS COSTAS EN EL JUZGADO TRAS LA EJECUCIÓN PROVISIONAL DE LA SENTENCIA POR EL GRUPO FPAG

GRUPO DE ACCION FINCA PARCS – DETALLE CRONOLÓGICO DE LA ACCIÓN JUDICIAL

● No se emitieron las garantías que la Ley establece en un total de 1.5 millones de Euros
● La demanda contra la CAM y la promotora Cleyton Ges SL se interpuso en Febrero de 2011

● La Audiencia Previa se celebró el 12 de Enero de 2012
● El juicio se celebró los días 21 y 22 de Mayo de 2012

● Julio de 2012 - La CAM apela la Sentencia de Primera Instancia
● Julio de 2012 - El grupo de acción Finca Parcs se opone a la apelación de la CAM
● Julio de 2012- El grupo de acción Finca Parcs insta la ejecución provisional de la Sentencia
● Agosto de 2012 – La CAM consigna el total de las cantidades más los intereses más las costas
en el Juzgado
● La apelación se decidirá en la Audiencia Provincial de Albacete- se espera Sentencia en al
plazo de un año.

EJECUCIÓN PROVISIONAL DE LA SENTENCIA

Después del juicio que se celebró en Mayo, el promotor Cleyton GES SL y la CAM Bank (ahora SabadellCAM) fueron condenados por el Juzgado de Primera Instancia a devolver el total de las cantidades pagadas por los miembros del grupo de acción Finca Parcs más los intereses y las costas. Cleyton GES SL no apeló la Sentencia de Primera Instancia; sin embargo ninguno de los demandados procedieron al pago de las cantidades objeto de condena en el plazo establecido en la Sentencia. Por ello, el grupo Finca Parcs interpuso la ejecución provisional de la Sentencia en el Juzgado y como resultado de ello la CAM ha consignado el total de las cantidades más los intereses y las costas tasados de manera provisional por el Juzgado.

Keith Rule coordinador del Grupo de Acción Finca Parcs comenta:

“Continuamos avanzando en el caso. Ya se ha producido la ejecución provisional de la Sentencia y al ser una entidad solvente esperamos tener una solución definitiva en breve. Nuestro caso se diferencia de otros en que hemos demandado al Banco y a la Promotora al mismo tiempo. Interpusimos la ejecución provisional de la Sentencia en el Juzgado el 18 de Julio, se admitió a trámite y se solicitó el pago provisional por el Juzgado a las dos entidades el 19 de Julio y el 1 de Agosto la CAM consignó el total de las cantidades en el Juzgado. En el momento oportuno, el Juzgado hará transferencia de dichos fondos a la cuenta de clientes de los abogados para que ellos custodien dichas cantidades hasta el resultado de la Apelación

OPOSICIÓN A LA APELACIÓN DE LA CAM

El grupo de Acción Finca Parcs se opuso en tiempo y forma al escrito de apelación de la CAM y está a la espera de la Sentencia de Apelación que será emitida por la Audiencia Provincial de Albacete.

Keith explica, “La Apelación no es presencial por lo que los demandantes no seremos de nuevo llamados a juicio. Tres Magistrados de la Audiencia Provincial de Albacete presidirán el Tribunal de Apelación y revisarán todas las pruebas aportadas en el Juzgado de Primera Instancia. Con base en otras apelaciones seguidas en la Audiencia Provincial de Albacete, se espera que la Sentencia se emita en el plazo de un año”

Jaime de Castro, Abogado del Grupo de Acción Finca Parcs comenta, “Trás revisar la apelación de la CAM y presentar nuestra oposición a dicha apelación, estoy convencido del resultado positivo de la apelación debido principalmente a la fuerza de la Sentencia de Primera Instancia y a las numerosas Sentencias de Audiencias Provinciales que al día de hoy defienden la responsabilidad y obligaciones de las entidades financieras en este tipo de juicios al amparo de la Ley 57/68”

María de Castro, abogado director de Costa Luz Lawyers, uno de los dos equipos jurídicos que ha estado trabajando en este y otros casos parecidos a lo largo de estos años ha añadido además que “El buen resultado de esta apelación contribuirá además de forma decisiva a reforzar la confianza en nuestro sistema judicial y bancario en el extranjero, que ha sido gravemente debilitado durante estos años de crisis. Estamos seguros de que la precisa interpretación de la Ley 57/68 por los Tribunales contribuirá de forma histórica a que estos abusos no se vuelvan a repetir y a frenar posibles especulaciones inmobiliarias futuras”

A pesar de que la actuación de la CAM fue descrita por la Juez de Primera Instancia como “malas prácticas bancarias” la CAM sigue manteniendo que no fue responsable de la situación y que todas las irregularidades e ilegalidades fueron cometidas por el promotor.

LAS VICTIMAS DE OTROS CASOS SIMILARES ESPERAN CON GRAN INTERES LA SENTENCIA

Otros compradores en promociones sobre plano a los que no se les emitieron los avales que establece la Ley aguardan el resultado de esta apelación con gran interés ya que esta Sentencia podrá ser usada a su favor en otros casos.

Keith añade; “A lo largo de los últimos años los compradores que no tenían avales instaban solamente las acciones frente a los Promotores de sus viviendas. Ganaban el caso pero la ejecución de sus Sentencias se presentaba como insatisfactoria ya que en la mayoría de los casos los promotores tenían todos sus bienes embargados, habían desaparecido, estaban en situación de concurso, bajo administración o liquidación”

Aquellos compradores que tengan casos en esa situación deben pedir a sus abogados que revisen sus casos a fin de verificar que tienen suficientes pruebas para interponer una demanda frente al Banco que conocía de los depósitos de cantidades sobre plano y que omitió su deber de verificar la existencia de los correspondientes avales o frente al Banco que emitió un aval general o colectivo frente al promotor”

CADUCA LA LICENCIA PARA CONSTRUIR EN LAS HIGUERICAS, FINCA PARCS

El Ayuntamiento de Hellín ha dictado una Resolución de la Adjudicación
del Programa de Actuación Urbanizadora en el sector de Las Higuericas.

Como resultado de esto, se ha suspendido la licencia que el promotor de Finca Parcs, Cleyton Ges SL tenía para construir la Promoción Las Higuericas Finca Parcs proyecto en Mayo de 2009 en el que se habían terminado solo el 10% de las 617 propiedades planeadas sin obtención de licencia por parte de ninguna de ellas.

La CAM (SabadellCAM) que es ahora el único acreedor de la promoción es dueña de las propiedades que en su día se construyeron pero ni él ni ningún otro promotor podrá continuar con la urbanización sin la previa sumisión de un nuevo proyecto en el Ayuntamiento y sin la previa obtención de licencia para construir.

UN FUEGO FORESTAL INMENSO CASI DESTRUYE LAS HIGUERICAS, FINCA PARCS

El pasado Julio, un gran fuego se desencadenó durante dos días en las montañas de la Sierra de los Donceles. El fuego llegó muy cerca de la zona de la promoción Las Higuericas Finca Parcs y aunque no hubo daños en las infraestructuras, gran parte de la zona de bosque de la parte de atrás de la promoción quedó totalmente destruida.

PRESS RELEASE - PAYMENT OF FULL AMOUNT BY CAM BANK

2012-08-10T15:04:28

PRESS / MEDIA RELEASE - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – 10 AUGUST 2012

FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP vs CAJA DE AHORROS DEL MEDITERRÁNEO (CAM BANK) & SPANISH DEVELOPER, CLEYTON GES SL

LEGAL PROCESS FORCES CAM BANK TO REFUND OFF-PLAN DEPOSITS

CAM BANK PAYS FULL AMOUNT OF THE BUYERS DEPOSITS PLUS LEGAL INTEREST AND COSTS TO THE COURT FOLLOWING THE FILING OF A PROVISIONAL ENFORCEMENT ORDER BY FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP

● 12 January 2012 - First Instance Court Preliminary Hearing
● 21 & 22 May 2012 - Trial held in First Instance Court - Hellín

● 8 June 2012 - Judgment released in favour of Finca Parcs Action Group
● CAM Bank and Cleyton GES SL sentenced to return deposits amounting to almost 1.5
    million Euros to the buyers with the addition of legal interest and costs
● July 2012 - CAM Bank appeals the First Instance Court Judgment
● July 2012 - Finca Parcs Action Group submits Opposition to the CAM Appeal
● July 2012 - Finca Parcs Action Group file Provisional Enforcement Order to the Court
● August 2012 – CAM Bank pays full amount of deposits plus legal interest and costs
    to the Court
● Appeal to be heard by the Albacete Appeal Court – decision expected within 1 year

PROVISIONAL ENFORCEMENT ORDER

Following the Finca Parcs trial in May of this year Spanish property developer Cleyton GES SL and CAM Bank (now SabadellCAM) were convicted jointly and severally by the First Instance Court to repay in full the off-plan deposits paid by members of the Finca Parcs Action Group plus in terest and costs. Cleyton GES SL did not appeal the First Instance Court Judgment; however neither defendant paid the funds to the Court within the time limit set by the Judgment. Therefore the Finca Parcs Action Group filed a Provisional Enforcement Order with the Court which resulted in CAM paying the full value of the deposits plus the amount tentatively set for interest and costs to the Court.

Keith Rule coordinator of the Finca Parcs Action Group comments:

“We continue to make progress in this case and it shows that the Provisional Enforcement Order can work in a timely and efficient manner if you are enforcing a judgment against a solvent entity. Our case differs to other similar cases due to the fact that we also included the Bank in our Lawsuit. We filed our Provisional Enforcement Order with the Court on 18 July, it was admitted and enforced by the Court against both defendants on 19 July and on 1 August CAM paid the full amount to the Court. In due course the Court will transfer the funds to our Lawyers client account and we will have ‘interim’ possession of our funds pending the result of the Appeal”.

OPPOSITION TO THE CAM BANK APPEAL

Finca Parcs Action Group filed their Opposition to the CAM Bank Appeal on time and the Appeal will now be heard by the Albacete Appeal Court.

Keith explains, “The Appeal is not a physical hearing so we will not be called to appear in person again. Three magistrates in the Albacete Appeal Court will preside over the Appeal reviewing all the evidence and the first instance Judgment. Based on the timescales of other appeals in the Albacete jurisdiction, we expect the appeal decision to be released within one year”.

Jaime de Castro, Lawyer for the Finca Parcs Action Group comments, “After reviewing the Banco CAM appeal and submitting our Opposition to that Appeal, I feel confident of a successful outcome in this case given the strength of the First Instance Judgment against CAM and the available Case Law relating to Banks liabilities and obligations according to Spanish Law, LEY 57/1968”

Maria de Castro, Director of Costa Luz Lawyers, one of the two legal teams that have been working on this and other similar cases over the past few years adds, "The success of this appeal will enhance confidence in our judicial and banking systems abroad which have been severely weakened during these years of crisis. We are confident that the precise interpretation of LEY 57/1968 by the courts will help to encourage future real estate investment by ensuring that these abuses do not occur again"

APPEAL DECISION EAGERLY AWAITED BY OTHER OFF-PLAN VICTIMS

Other buyers of off-plan property who were not issued with the legally required bank guarantees will be awaiting the outcome of this appeal with interest as an Appeal Court decision can be used as a Case Law precedent in other similar cases.

Keith says; “During the past few years buyers without Bank Guarantees were advised to take legal action only against the developer. They win the case, but enforcing the judgment proves very difficult as on most occasions the developers have asset stripped, gone missing, declared bankruptcy or entered Administration.

For buyers in that situation it is important their cases are now reviewed by their legal teams to see if they have the necessary evidence required to file a Lawsuit against either the Bank who knowingly accepted the off-plan deposit and failed in its legal obligation to issue or verify the existence of the corresponding Bank Guarantee or against a Bank who may have issued a Generic or Collective Bank Guarantee to the developer”.

LICENCE TO BUILD AT LAS HIGUERICAS, FINCA PARCS EXPIRES

The Ayuntamiento de Hellín (Hellín Town Hall) has issued a Resolución de la Adjudicación
del Programa de Actuación Urbanizadora en el sector de Las Higuericas.

The result of this is that Finca Parcs developer Cleyton GES SL has had the contract for the licence to build the Las Higuericas Finca Parcs development cancelled after they failed to complete the urbanisation within the time limit set according to the Contract signed with the Town Hall.

The Town Hall has now claimed the funds under the security bond that was given by Cleyton GES SL at the time of signing the contract.

Cleyton GES SL abandoned the Las Higuericas Finca Parcs project in May 2009 completing only 10% of the planned 617 detached villas and none of the properties were granted a First Occupation Licence.

CAM Bank (SabadellCAM) as the single largest creditor now owns the properties that were constructed but they or any other developer or promoter cannot continue with the Urbanisation without first submitting a new draft plan to the Town Hall and requesting a new licence.

HUGE FOREST FIRE ALMOST DESTROYS LAS HIGUERICAS, FINCA PARCS

In July a huge forest fire burned out of control for 2 days in the mountains of the Sierra de los Donceles. The fire came very close to the Las Higuericas Finca Parcs site and although the infrastructure was not affected, much of the forest area at the back of the site was destroyed.

NOTA DE PRENSA - APELACIÓN DE BANCO CAM

2012-07-19T13:56:12

NOTA DE PRENSA. PARA PUBLICACIÓN INMEDIATA

GRUPO DE ACCIÓN FINCA PARCS (FPAG) vs CAJA DE AHORROS DEL MEDITERRÁNEO (CAM BANK) & PROMOTOR ESPAÑOL, CLEYTON GES SL

APELACIÓN POR LA CAM

BANCO CAM (SabadellCAM) HA PRESENTADO RECURSO DE APELACIÓN FRENTE A LA SENTENCIA DEL JUZGADO DE PRIMERA INSTANCIA QUE CONDENABA A ESTOS A PAGAR 1.5 MILLONES DE EUROS A LOS COMPRADORES EN FINCA PARCS

GRUPO DE ACCIÓN FINCA PARCS – CRONOLOGÍA

● Se dejaron de emitir avales bancarios legalmente obligatorios por un valor de 1.5
     millones de Euros
● La demanda frente a la CAM y la promotora Cleyton GES SL se presentó en Febrero
    de 2011

● La Audiencia Previa de la Primera Instancia tuvo lugar el 12 de Enero de 2012
● El juicio tuvo lugar los días lunes 21 de Mayo de 2012 & Martes 22 de Mayo de 2012

● Se dictó Sentencia a favor de los compradores en Finca Parcs el viernes 8 de Junio de
2012
● Banco Cam y Cleyton GES SL han sido condenados a la devolución de cantidades que
ascienden a casi 1.5 millones de Euros más intereses y costas
● Banco CAM apela la Sentencia de Primera Instancia

APELACIÓN DE BANCO CAM

Banco CAM, ahora SabadellCAM, ha interpuesto recurso de apelación frente a la Sentencia del Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Hellín que condenaba al Banco junto con el promotor a la devolución de los depósitos de los compradores en el caso de la promoción Higuericas Finca Parcs cerca de Murcia, en España.

En la Sentencia de Primera Instancia se condenaba a la CAM y a Cleyton GES SL al pago solidario de 1.5 millones de Euros más intereses más costas de 55 contratos relativos a 47 miembros del Grupo de Acción Finca Parcs.

El plazo para la interposición del recurso terminaba el pasado martes 10 de Julio de 2012 y el escrito de la CAM tiene de fecha el 9 de Julio.

La promotora, Cleyton Ges no ha apelado la Sentencia.

OPOSICIÓN A LA APELACIÓN

La apelación se admitió a trámite el 13 de Julio y el grupo Finca Parcs tiene ahora 10 días laborables para presentar la oposición a la apelación.

Jaime de Castro, Abogado del FPAG, espera que la resolución de la Audiencia de Albacete sea favorable a los compradores, sobre todo debido a la “fuerza de la Sentencia de Primera Instancia y la existente jurisprudencia sobre obligaciones bancarias en la Ley 57/68”

PAGO DE MILLÓN Y MEDIO DE EUROS

De Castro anunció también que el pago de 1,494,710 Euros no había sido efectuado y que por ello, como la Ley de Enjuiciamiento civil española permite “ ha solicitado la ejecución provisional de la Sentencia mientras que la apelación se decide”

En lo referente a plazos para la emisión de la Sentencia de Apelación, De Castro afirmó que la Audiencia Provincial de Albacete normalmente resuelve estos casos en un plazo razonable, que puede ser de dos meses a un año dependiendo de las características de cada caso.

En el juicio que se celebró en Mayo, la CAM mantuvo siempre que no era responsable de la situación y de que todas las irregularidades e ilegalidades habían sido cometidas por el promotor.

MALA GESTIÓN, NEGLIGENCIA Y MALAS PRÁCTICAS

Sin embargo, a pesar de que CAM Bank alega no tener relación alguna con los compradores, la juez de primera instancia afirma:

“La verdad es que la CAM conocía que los pagos que hacían los compradores en cuentas de sus oficinas eran cantidades adelantadas en compraventas sobre plano y la CAM mostró una dejación a absoluta de las obligaciones que la Ley 57/68 impone a las instituciones financieras y este comportamiento se puede describir como de mala práctica bancaria. Está claro que los depósitos se usaron de forma contraria lo establecido por la Ley 57/1968.

No debemos olvidar que la obligación de depositar las cantidades en una cuenta abierta especialmente para tal fin es de la institución financiera que no solo recibe el premium de las garantías sino que también se beneficia de los resultados del proyecto”

SabadellCAM

CAM Bank fue intervenida por el Banco de España en Julio de 2011 y luego vendida al Banco de Sabadell por un euro a finales de 2011. El informe que el FROB emitió para Banco de España describió las muchas irregularidades cometidas por los directores de la CAM, especialmente los préstamos concedidos de forma imprudente y la concesión de beneficios anuales y pensiones a los altos directivos de la Caja.

En Marzo de 2011 la CAM publicaba la obtención de beneficios por 38.9 millones de Euros, sin embargo solo tres meses después, sus cuentas arrojaban pérdidas de 1,136 millones de euros.

En 2011 el Banco de España calificó a la CAM de “escandalosa” y “lo peor de lo peor”.

Los altos directivos de la CAM a quienes el FPAG envió sus reclamaciones en 2009, comparecen en la actualidad ante la Audiencia Nacional acusados de delitos societarios, estafas, malversación, apropiación indebida y manipulación del precio de las cosas.

La semana pasada la CAM fue liquidada después de 137 años de existencia como Caja de Ahorros y el negocio de la CAM se ha incorporado al Banco de Sabadell bajo el nombre SabadellCAM.

LA APELACIÓN ERA DE ESPERAR

Keith Rule, el coordinador del FPAG ha declarado:

“Sabíamos que la CAM apelaría y por ello estábamos ya preparados. Nuestra posición es muy favorable ya que es un caso muy importante y la Sentencia de Primera Instancia es muy contundente contra ambos demandados.

Nuestra batalla no ha terminado aún, esto no es más que otro obstáculo que la CAM pone en nuestro largo camino para obtener Justicia. Sin embargo, seguimos entusiasmados y creemos que tenemos uno de los casos más consistentes de los de este tipo, en los que compradores no tienen avales bancarios.

La Sentencia de Primera Instancia ha supuesto un hito y por lo tanto, el resultado de la apelación se espera con mucho interés por miles de compradores de viviendas sobre plano en España.

La Sentencia de Primera Instancia afirma claramente que los Bancos tienen obligaciones y responsabilidades según lo establecido por la Ley española 57/68. Esta ley se dictó para la protección del interés público en 1968 y de forma específica para proteger los depósitos de compradores en compraventas sobre plano en España. Esta ley de reforzó por la Ley de Ordenación de la Edificación de 1999, pero aún así se ha ignorado de forma sistemática por promotores y bancos a los largo de los últimos diez años.

Si se hubiese respetado esta Ley durante el boom inmobiliario, los Bancos no hubiesen prestado dinero a promotores de forma tan imprudente ya que habrían estado restringidos por las obligaciones que dicha Ley les impone.

Esperemos que otros abogados vean ahora que los Juzgados reconocen que en determinadas circunstancias los Bancos tienen responsabilidades y obligaciones de acuerdo con lo establecido en la ley 57/68.

ENTREVISTA POR LA BBC RADIO 4

Keith Rule, coordinador del FPAG fue entrevistado por Radio 4 el miércoles 11 de Julio. Puedes escuchar la entrevista en este link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00vymv3

PRESS RELEASE - CAM BANK APPEAL

2012-07-19T13:34:58

PRESS / MEDIA RELEASE - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP vs CAJA DE AHORROS DEL MEDITERRÁNEO (CAM BANK) & SPANISH DEVELOPER, CLEYTON GES SL

APPEAL SUBMITTED BY BANCO CAM

BANCO CAM (SabadellCAM) FILES AN APPEAL AGAINST THE FIRST INSTANCE COURT JUDGMENT WHICH SENTENCED IT TO REPAY 1.5 MILLION EUROS OF PURCHASERS DEPOSITS AT FINCA PARCS

FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP – TIMELINE OF THE LAWSUIT

● No legally required Bank Guarantees for Off-Plan deposits totalling 1.5 million Euros
● Lawsuit against CAM Bank & developer Cleyton GES SL filed in February 2011

● First Instance Court Preliminary Hearing held on 12 January 2012
● Trial held on Monday 21 May 2012 & Tuesday 22 May 2012

● Judgment released in favour of Finca Parcs Action Group on Friday 8 June 2012
● CAM Bank and Cleyton GES SL sentenced to return deposits amounting to almost 1.5
    million Euros to the buyers with the addition of legal interest and costs
● CAM Bank appeals the First Instance Court Judgment



MEMBERS OF THE FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP OUTSIDE THE FIRST INSTANCE COURT AND CAM BANK IN HELLÍN –MAY 2012

CAM BANK APPEAL

CAM Bank, recently rebranded as SabadellCAM, has filed an appeal against the Judgment of the First Instance Court in Hellín which sentenced it along with the developer Cleyton GES SL to refund buyers deposits in the case of the Las Higuericas Finca Parcs development near Murcia, Spain.

In the First Instance Judgment CAM Bank was sentenced, jointly and severally, with Cleyton GES SL to refund almost 1.5 million Euros plus interest and costs relating to 55 sales contracts for 47 members of the Finca Parcs Action Group.

The deadline for the submission of an appeal and payment of the deposits to the Court was Tuesday 10 July 2012 and the CAM Bank Appeal was dated 9 July.

The developer, Cleyton GES SL, did not appeal the First Instance Court Judgment.

RESPONSE TO THE APPEAL

The Appeal filed by CAM Bank was admitted into the Court system on 13 July and the Finca Parcs Action Group now has 10 working days to file their opposition to the appeal.

Jaime de Castro, Lawyer for the Finca Parcs Action Group, expects a favourable decision from the Albacete Appeal Court considering “the strength of the First Instance Judgment against CAM Bank and the available Case Law relating to Banks liabilities and obligations according to Spanish Law, LEY 57/1968”

PAYMENT OF 1.5 MILLION EUROS

De Castro also announced that payment of 1,494,710 Euros had not been made to the Court by either defendant; therefore he has now “requested the provisional execution of the Judgment while the appeal process continues”.

As for the timescales for reaching a Judgment in the Appeal, De Castro said that the Albacete Appeal Court normally resolves these cases in a reasonable time, which can be between two months and one year depending on the characteristics of each case.

Throughout the trial in May, CAM Bank maintained it was not responsible for the situation and that all irregular actions and illegalities were committed only by the developer.

MISMANAGEMENT, NEGLIGENCE & MALPRACTICE

However, regarding the involvement of CAM Bank, which claimed it has no relationship with the buyers, the judgment of the First Instance Court states that:

“The truth is that CAM knew that the payments made by buyers into accounts at their branches were on account of real estate purchases and CAM showed absolute disregard to the obligations imposed on financial institutions by LEY 57/1968 and this behaviour can be described as banking malpractice. It is clear the off-plan deposits were used in a manner contrary to the requirements of Spanish Law, LEY 57/1968.

We must not forget that the obligation to deposit the amounts advanced to an account opened specifically for that purpose is that of the financial institution as not only does it receive the premium of the guarantees but also benefits by way of profit from the project”

SabadellCAM

CAM Bank was taken over by the Bank of Spain in July 2011 and then sold to Banco Sabadell for One Euro at the end of 2011. The report produced for the Bank of Spain by the FROB described the many irregularities committed by the former CAM managers, especially the reckless real estate lending and the granting of annuities and pensions to senior management.

In March 2011 CAM reported profits of 38.9 million Euros, however just 3 months later its accounts showed losses of 1,136 million Euros.

In 2011 the Bank of Spain described CAM as ‘Scandalous’ and called the Bank ‘The Worst of The Worst’.

The CAM senior managers to whom the Finca Parcs Action Group took their complaint in 2009 are currently appearing in the High Court accused of committing corporate crime, price manipulation, embezzlement, fraud and misappropriation.

Last week CAM Bank was liquidated after 137 years as a Savings Bank (Caja) and the CAM business is now incorporated under the Banco Sabadell brand as SabadellCAM.

APPEAL WAS EXPECTED

Keith Rule, coordinator of the Finca Parcs Action Group said:

“We expected an appeal from CAM and were therefore prepared to respond accordingly. We are in a good position with a high profile case and a very strong First Instance Judgment against both defendants.

Our fight is not yet over; this is just another hurdle that CAM is putting in our way on the long road to Justice. However, we remain positive and I believe we have one of the strongest cases of its type – that of buyers without Bank Guarantees.

The First Instance Judgment was a landmark ruling and therefore the result of the appeal will be eagerly awaited by many thousands of buyers of off-plan property in Spain.

It is clear from the First Instance Judgment that Banks do have liabilities and obligations according to Spanish Law, LEY 57/1968. This law was introduced in the public interest in 1968 specifically to protect purchasers’ deposits when purchasing off-plan properties in Spain. It was even strengthened by the Building Act of 1999 but has been largely ignored by the developers and Banks over the past decade.

If the Law had been adhered to and properly enforced during the real estate boom then the Banks would not have lent so recklessly to builders and developers as they would have been restricted by the liabilities imposed on them by LEY 57/1968.

Let’s hope that many other Lawyers now see that the Courts do recognise that in certain circumstances Banks do have liabilities and obligations according to LEY 57/1968”

BBC RADIO 4 INTERVIEW

Keith Rule, coordinator of the Finca Parcs Action Group was interviewed by Radio 4 on Wednesday 11 July. You can listen to that interview on the link below:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00vymv3

LAS HIGUERICAS FINCA PARCS SENTENCE

2012-06-22T12:43:41

You can now download a PDF copy of the Las Higuericas Finca Parcs Full Sentence or a PDF copy of the Summary version of the Sentence by clicking the links below:

CASO LAS HIGUERICAS - FULL SENTENCE - IN SPANISH

http://www.fincaparcsactiongroup.com/Sentencia.pdf

CASO LAS HIGUERICAS - SUMMARY SENTENCE - IN SPANISH

http://www.fincaparcsactiongroup.com/Resumen.pdf

Daily Telegraph Article - 19 June 2012

2012-06-19T18:49:17

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/9333798/British-expats-beat-Spanish-bank-in-six-year-property-feud.html

Daily Telegraph

British expats beat Spanish bank in six-year property feud

A Spanish bank that refused to return off-plan deposits belonging to 47 British expats who invested in a failed Spanish property development has been ordered to repay €1.5million, following a six-year legal battle.

By Sean O'Hare

3:27PM BST 19 Jun 2012

Known collectively as the Finca Parcs Action Group, the expats each paid between €10,000-70-000 in deposits for off-plan homes on a 'luxury development' near Murcia, only for the developer to disappear and Spain's fourth biggest savings bank, Caja de Ahorros del Mediterraneo (CAM), to withold their downpayments.

Keith Rule who has headed the action group and fought for the return of his €53,000, said: "For far too long Spain has alienated the very people who once helped the country prosper.

"Now the Spanish Government must learn important lessons from this case.

"If these types of cases are dealt with in a fair and speedy manner then maybe some of those people who have been the victims of negligence and malpractice may once again have the confidence to invest in Spanish property.

"After all that is what Spain wants and more importantly, desperately needs."

CAM bank was the sole financial entity in the project, responsible for financing the development, accepting the off-plan deposits and issuing the corresponding, legally required, bank guarantee certificates to buyers.

In 2009, four years after the first deposits were handed over, the developer abandoned the development and disappeared, having built only a fraction of the homes, while the expats were still without the required bank guarantees, despite repeated requests.

"We did everything by the book before buying into these properties so felt particularly let down when the bank pulled the rug from under our feet, said Mr Rule.

"The development was advertised in Easy Jet magazine, the sales agent was British, the developer even stated on the reservation forms that it was represented by a UK lawyer, the project was launched with a champagne reception at Chelsea Football Club surrounded by sporting celebrities - we didn't think for a minute it would all go so disastrously wrong", said Keith.

When investors realised their holiday homes would never be built, Cam bank replied that it was not obliged to return their money because they were not in receipt of the very certificates it was supposed to issue.

At the court hearing in Hellín, Spain, the judge ruled against developer Cleyton GES SL and CAM bank, referring to 'serious breaches' on behalf of the developer and an 'absolute disregard by CAM bank to the obligations imposed on financial institutions by Spanish law.'

CAM bank was nationalised by the Spanish government in 2011 and then sold to Banco Sabadell for the sum of 1€, with all future losses underwritten by the government for the following five years.

Banco Sabadell declined to comment on the ruling.

The ruling gives hope to other expats, believed to run into the thousands, who have suffered at the hands of unscrupulous Spanish banks and developers after investing in Spanish property.

There are estimated to be 700,000 unsold holiday homes in Spain, the majority of which are located along the southern coastlines, where property prices have dropped by as much as 60 per cent in certain regions.

A spokesman for the British Embassy in Spain said: "The government and British Embassy in Madrid continue to urge the Spanish authorities to seek solutions to the problems facing property owners".

THANK YOU

2012-06-17T00:22:43

Thanks to all who those have sent congratulatory messages to the Finca Parcs Action Group via Facebook, Email, Eye on Spain and the EOS Ley 57/1968 blog page.

I have been overwhelmed by all the messages of support - and I have been struggling to keep up with all the work in the last few days!!

Our fight is not yet over - we are realistic - there may well be an appeal from the Bank and/or Developer. But we could not have had a better result from the First Instance Court - it was a very strong Judgment.

We hope that our success will help other people with Bank Guarantee issues on other Off-Plan developments in Spain.

Lets hope that many other Lawyers now see that the Courts do recognise that in certain circumstances Banks do have liabilities and obligations according to LEY 57/1968. It is of little use just winning a case against a developer who is bankrupt, has asset stripped or is in Administration - in most cases this will not result in a return of your money as it will be almost impossible to enforce the Judgment.

If you have a strong case with evidence to back it up then file a joint Lawsuit against the Developer and Bank.

As we have shown the Banks do have liabilities and obligations according to LEY 57/1968.

Good Luck and Kind regards,

Keith

FINCA PARCS GRUPO DE ACCIÓN - NOTA DE PRENSA TRAS LA SENTENCIA

2012-06-11T00:32:58

NOTA DE PRENSA- PARA PUBLICACIÓN INMEDIATA

FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP vs CAJA DE AHORROS DEL MEDITERRÁNEO (CAM BANK) & PROMOTOR ESPAÑOL, CLEYTON GES SL

VICTORIA DEL FINCA PARCS GRUPO DE ACCIÓN EN EL JUZGADO DE PRIMERA INSTANCIA

LA SENTENCIA CONDENA A LA CAM & CLEYTON GES SL, SOLIDARIAMENTE A DEVOLVER LAS CANTIDADES ENTREGADAS A TODOS LOS MIEMBROS DEL GRUPO CON INTERESES Y COSTAS

GRUPO DE ACCIÓN FINCA PARCS – CRONOLOGÍA DEL JUICIO

● No se emitieron las garantías que la Ley establece en un total de 1.5 millones de
    Euros
● La demanda contra la CAM y la promotora Cleyton GES SL se interpuso en Febrero de
    2011

● La Audiencia Previa se celebró el 12 de Enero de 2012
● El juicio se celebró los días 21 y 22 de Mayo de 2012

● La Sentencia a favor de Finca Parcs Grupo de Acción se dictó el viernes 8 de Junio de
2012
● CAM y Cleyton GES SL deben devolver cantidades que suman 1,5 millones de euros
más intereses y costas.

JUSTICIA

Victoria aplastante para los miembros del Grupo de Acción Finca Parcs este pasado viernes 8 de Junio de 2012. La juez del Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Hellín dictó Sentencia a favor de estos 47 demandantes.

El Juzgado condena de forma solidaria a los dos codemandados, la promotora Cleyton GES SL y la única entidad financiera del proyecto Caja de Ahorros del Mediterráneo (CAM), a devolver las cantidades adelantadas en compraventas sobre plano de estos demandantes que juntas hacen un total de 1,5 millones de euros. Estas cantidades se entregaron en la compra de viviendas que nunca fueron construidas en la promoción Las Higuericas, Finca Parcs, cerca de Agramón, Albacete, promoción que se encuentra hoy en día en estado de abandono. Junto a esto, la Sentencia condena al pago de intereses y costas.

El Juez declare resueltos los 55 contratos debido a “importantes incumplimientos” por el promotor, en particular, “el largo e indefinido retraso en la entrega de las propiedades, la falta de licencia de primera ocupación y la falta de avales bancarios en relación con las cantidades entregadas por los compradores”. La juez también sentenció que la CAM “incumplió sus obligaciones legales de controlar el uso de los cantidades entregadas por adelantado por los compradores en esta promoción”.

FUERTE SENTENCIA

La Sentencia es fuerte y completamente a favor de los compradores.

La Sentencia de Consuelo Romero, Juez de Primera Instancia del Juzgado número 2 de Hellín se notificó a las partes el 8 de Junio de 2012 y concluye que tanto en promotor como la entidad financiera incumplieron sus obligaciones legales.

La Sentencia pido a la CAM y a Cleyton GES SL, de forma solidaria, que devuelvan los 1,494,710 Euros in depósitos sobre plano pagados por los 47 miembros del grupo Finca Parcs, más intereses, más costas.

Las costas puedes representar una cantidad importante teniendo en cuenta que el caso comenzó en 2011 y tiene más de 5000 páginas. Además, los miembros del Grupo Finca Parcs tuvieron que viajar a España a petición de la CAM para comparecer en persona en el juicio.

En la Sentencia el Juez afirma que, “no se trata de un simpe retraso en la entrega de las viviendas sino que se puede concluir que en este caso concreto, el excesivo retraso ha hecho caer el interés el contrato y ha roto la confianza mutua”

La Juez recoge literalmente la declaración de Keith Rule, quien reclamaba más de 53.000 euros. En dicha declaración Rule, respondiendo a Cleyton GES SL, dijo que bajo ninguna circunstancia los compradores aceptarían ninguna de las propiedades de las 50 que están construidas, todas en Fase Uno y sin licencia de primera ocupación, ya que el retraso es de 5 a 7 años desde la firma de cada contrato y que la fecha de entrega no se puede dejar a elección del promotor de forma indefinida.

LA Sentencia recoge de forma expresa que “la falta de Licencia Primera Ocupación se atribuye de forma exclusive al Promotor” y que la falta de Aval Bancario también se considera “causa de resolución del contrato ya que es una obligación legal”

GESTIÓN IRREGULAR, NEGLIGENCIA Y MALAS PRÁCTICAS

En relación a la participación de la CAM, que defendía no tener relación alguna con los compradores, la Sentencia también se manifiesta de la siguiente forma. La Juez recoge afirmaciones de la Exposición de Motivos de la Ley 57/68 y del articulado de la Ley: “no podemos ignorar la declaración del demandante que dijo que los compradores se decidieron al pago de cantidades por adelantado en este promoción debido a la promesa de Avales Bancarios de la CAM y debido a la fuerte participación de la CAM como entidad financiante tanto en la publicidad como en el contrato”

CAM afirmó en su defensa que era ajena a las transferencias en las dos “cuentas corrientes” en las que los compradores hicieron sus pagos. Sin embargo, a la vista de la documentación que se aportó como prueba y de las manifestaciones de aquellos que gestionaron dichas transferencias, la Sentencia afirma que, “ Es un hecho probado que la CAM conocía que los pagos hechos a las cuentas de Cleyton GES abiertas en las sucursales de la CAM eran pagos de cantidades adelantadas por compradores en compraventas sobre plano y la CAM incumplió su obligación, como entidad financiera y de acurdo a lo establecido en la Ley 57/68 y que este comportamiento se puede considerar mala práctica”. La Juez añadió que “está claro que las cantidades adelantadas se usaron de forma contraria a lo establecido por la Ley española, Ley 57/68”

La Sentencia también hacer referencia a la “cuenta especial” y afirma que, “los documentos presentados corroboran que el valor de las garantías que la Cam emitió a favor de otros compradores, que no son parte en este procedimiento, hacen un total de unos 6.5 millones de euros, sin embargo la cantidad total de pagos hechos en la “cuenta especial” es de una cantidad significativamente inferior”. Además, la Juez señala que “otros documentos aportados a lo largo del juicio son de gran importancia y en concreto las copias de avales de la CAM emitidos a favor de otros compradores, que no son parte en este procedimiento, en los que se señala como especiales las dos cuentas que la CAM ha venido manteniendo a lo largo del juicio que son ordinarias”

CONCLUSION

La Juez concluye:

“La verdad es que la CAM conocía que los pagos hechos por compradores en las cuentas de sus sucursales eran cantidades adelantadas en compraventas sobre plano y sin embargo eludió completamente las obligaciones que la Ley impone a la entidades financieras en la ley 57/68”

No debemos olvidar que la obligación de depositar las cantidades en cuenta especial es de la entidad financiera que no solo recibe contraprestación por la emisión de garantías sino que se beneficia del proyecto. De hecho la CAM fue la única entidad financiera involucrada en este proyecto ya que ella misma pidió “exclusividad”.

El demandante que respondió a las preguntas en juicio demostró claramente que los compradores contactaron no solo a la CAM sino también al promotor de formas diferentes pidiéndoles la entrega del correspondiente Aval para la garantía de sus cantidades”

Apelación

Como toda Sentencia de Primera Instancia, los demandados puedes recurrirla en apelación.

COMENTARIOS DEL GRUPO FINCA PARCS

JAIME DE CASTRO - ABOGADO

Jaime de Castro, el abogado del Grupo Finca Parcs manifestó ayer que estaba muy contento con la Sentencia y recalcó que:

"La Sentencia es técnicamente impecable; analiza todos los puntos, sin dejar lagunas y recoge argumentos de fuerte consistencia que ve difíciles de rebatir en apelación. Por lo que creo que mis clientes recibirán la devolución de sus cantidades”

Afirmó que es una Sentencia que, por la importancia del caso, será un precedente importante para casos parecidos, y que también:

"Es buena para la imagen de España, y de su sistema judicial e incluso su sistema financiero. Debido a la sensibilidad que hay hacia este tipo de problemas en el Reino Unido, y la situación que atraviesa España en la actualidad, es bueno que se transmita el mensaje de que el sistema funciona y resuelve los problemas de una forma bastante rápida”

KEITH RULE – COORDINADOR – GRUPO DE ACCIÓN FINCA PARCS

Después de que el coordinador del grupo, Keith Rule, fuese informado de la Sentencia, este manifestó que los miembros del grupo estaba entusiasmados, pero comentó que había sido un “proceso muy estresante y que habían soportado muchos años de lucha y esfuerzo para defender sus derechos”

Keith continua: “Para nosotros es una Sentencia estupenda. Es un premio al esfuerzo y determinación de todos los que hemos trabajado juntos. Es una Sentencia importante ya que ninguno de los demandantes recibió el aval que establece la Ley 57/68. La gran relevancia de esta Sentencia no se debe desestimar”

Creo que el caso y su Sentencia se estudiarán mucho en el futuro. Tan pronto como las noticias se difundan aparecerán más y más personas interesadas.

Por desgracia, esta Sentencia no implica que todo comprador sobre plano que carezca de las garantías que establece la Ley pueda usar esta misma acción. Hay ciertas notas específicas en este caso que y una cantidad de pruebas aportadas, en nuestra opinión sin precedentes. Sin embargo se pueden establecer paralelismos ente este caso y el de otras promociones y sin duda esta Sentencia de Primera Instancia se usará, no como precedente, ya que este lo forman las Audiencias Provinciales o el Supremo, pero si como argumento en muchas otras Sentencias futuras”

COMENTARIOS DE KEITH RULE SOBRE LA REPONSABILIDAD DE LOS BANCOS SEGÚN LA LEY 57/68.

El Grupo de Acción Finca Parcs tiene como representantes legales a Costa Luz Lawyers y a De Castro Gabinete Jurídico. Estamos profundamente agradecidos a la profesionalidad, dedicación, esfuerzo y apoyo de nuestro equipo jurídico durante los últimos cuatro años. Gracias de forma especial a María de Castro, con quien tuve mi primer contacto en el año 2008 y a Jaime de Castro, nuestro abogado en Juzgados, con el que he tenido el placer de trabajar sobre el caso durante los últimos dos años.

Parece extraño pensar ahora que en 2007, cuando nos dimos cuenta por primera vez de que había un problema con la promoción fui incapaz de encontrar a un solo abogado que compartiese conmigo la idea de que los Bancos tenían responsabilidad en este tipo de asuntos. Esto fue hasta el año 2008 cuando contacté con María de Castro y Costa Luz Lawyers a través de EyeonSpain (foro de internet). Aunque un poco escéptica al principio, María pronto se dio cuenta de que yo no iba a parar hasta encontrar lo que quería y de que solo había una forma de defender mi caso- acción frente al promotor y el Banco. Encontramos muchas dificultades a lo largo del camino, siendo no menos importantes la de otros abogados que, por distintas razones, no compartían nuestra filosofía.

JUSTICIA RÁPIDA

Como he dicho anteriormente en muchas ocasiones, el hecho de que el Derecho Español establece derechos irrenunciables para proteger a los compradores sobre plano, no es nada nuevo. La Ley que los consagra es de 1968; el problema es que esta Ley ha sido siempre incumplida por promotores y Bancos en la última década. El Banco de España y el Gobierno Español no fueron lo suficientemente diligentes a la hora de velar por el cumplimiento de esta Ley, incluso muchos juzgados la han interpretado de forma incorrecta a lo largo de los últimos años. El “espíritu” de la Ley 57/68 y su exposición de motives son de una importancia vital si se quiere entender correctamente su sentido y las razones que motivaron su promulgación. La Sentencia Finca Parcs ha mencionado de forma amplia no solamente la Ley en sí sino también su exposición de motives y demuestra que cuando la Ley se aplica correctamente, el sistema judicial español funciona y que la Justicia se hace de forma rápida y eficaz.

España ha perjudicado durante demasiado tiempo a aquellos que ayudaron a su prosperidad.

El Gobierno español debe aprender importantes lecciones de este caso y de la Petición sobre Avales Bancarios (www.bankguaranteesinspain.com). Si este tipo de casos se resuelven de forma rápida, es posible que muchos de los que han sido víctima de las negligencias y de las malas prácticas quizás vuelvan a recuperar la confianza para invertir en España. A fin de cuentas es lo que España quiere y necesita de forma desesperada.

Actualmente, el grupo de Acción Finca Parcs está disfrutando el momento, pero somos conscientes y sabemos que aunque hemos conseguido un adelanto importantísimo en los derechos, no estamos aún en línea de meta. Solicitaremos la ejecución provisional de la Sentencia pero además nos prepararemos por si algunos de los demandados recurren.

Si se promueve apelación, está se conocerá en la Audiencia Provincia de Albacete y esta Sentencia podrá ser utilizada como precedente en otras demandas.

NOTA: AVALES BANCARIOS EN LAS HIGUERICAS, FINCA PARCS

Otros compradores en Las Higuericas, Finca Parcs que sí recibieron sus avales, han ejecutado los mismos a lo largo de los tres últimos años y han recibido sus cantidades. Sin embargo, algunos de estos también tuvieron que enfrentarse a problemas y se vieron en la necesidad de comenzar juicios para la ejecución de las garantías ya que al principio, la CAM incluso se oponía al pago de las mismas en muchas ocasiones.

FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP - PRESS RELEASE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT

2012-06-10T01:15:33

PRESS / MEDIA RELEASE - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP vs CAJA DE AHORROS DEL MEDITERRÁNEO (CAM BANK) & SPANISH DEVELOPER, CLEYTON GES SL

VICTORY FOR THE FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP IN THE FIRST INSTANCE COURT

JUDGMENT CONDEMS CAM BANK & CLEYTON GES SL, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, TO RETURN THE DEPOSITS PAID BY THE GROUP MEMBERS WITH INTEREST AND LEGAL COSTS

● First Instance Court Preliminary Hearing held on 12 January 2012
● Trial held on Monday 21 May 2012 & Tuesday 22 May 2012

● Judgment released in favour of Finca Parcs Action Group on Friday 8 June 2012
● CAM Bank and Cleyton GES SL must return deposits amounting to almost 1.5 million
euros to the buyers with the addition of legal interest and costs

JUSTICE

Justice was delivered in an overwhelming manner on Friday 8 June 2012 when the Judge in the First Instance Court in Hellín found in favour of 47 buyers who make up the Finca Parcs Action Group.

The court convicted jointly and severally both defendants, the developer Cleyton GES SL and the sole financial entity of the project, Caja de Ahorros del Mediterráneo (CAM), to return the off-plan deposits paid by group members totalling almost 1.5 million euros for houses that were never built at the abandoned Las Higuericas, Finca Parcs development close to Agramón, Albacete.

Furthermore, the judgment orders the payment of interest and costs.

The Judge declared the 55 sales contracts terminated due to “serious breaches” by the developer, in particular, “the long and indefinite delay in delivery of the properties, the failure to obtain the First Occupation Licences and the lack of Bank Guarantees for deposits paid by the buyers”. The Judge also stated that CAM Bank “failed in its legal obligations to control the use of off-plan deposits paid in advance for this development”.

STRONG SENTENCE

The sentence is strong and fully in favour of the buyers.

The decision of Consuelo Romero, Judge of the First Instance Court No.2 in Hellín was announced on Friday 8 June 2012 and concludes that both the developer and financial entity failed to fulfil their legal obligations.

The ruling requires CAM and Cleyton GES, jointly and severally, to return 1,494,710 Euros in off-plan deposits paid by 47 Finca Parcs Action Group members for 55 Sales Contracts, plus interest and costs.

The costs may represent a significant amount considering that the case was started in February 2011 and has accumulated over 5,000 pages in the Courts records. In addition 70 members of the Finca Parcs Action Group were forced to travel to Spain following the request to the Court by CAM Bank for all buyers to appear in person at the trial.

In the sentence the Judge states that, “this is not just a simple delay in the delivery of the housing but in this case it can be considered as an excessive delay that has obstructed the very purpose of the contract and broken mutual good faith”.

The Judge quotes the testimony of Keith Rule, who himself paid over 53,000€ in off-plan deposits to CAM Bank, during which Mr Rule when questioned by Cleyton GES said that under no circumstances would the buyers now be willing to accept a property from the 50 completed, but unlicensed houses on Phase 1, as the delay for the buyers already amounted to between 5 and 7 years from the signing of each individual contract and completion cannot be left to the discretion of the developer indefinitely.

The Judgment states expressly that “the lack of the First Occupation Licence is attributable exclusively to the developer” and that the lack of Bank Guarantees is also “cause for termination of the contract, since it is an obligation of legal and mandatory character”.

MISMANAGEMENT, NEGLIGENCE & MALPRACTICE

Regarding the involvement of CAM Bank, which claimed it has no relationship with the buyers, the detailed and comprehensive judgment also rules in this area. The Judge quotes extensively from the preamble of LEY 57/1968 and from the Law itself and says in this regard, “we cannot ignore the testimony of the purchaser who when interrogated said that the buyers were encouraged to pay reservation deposits at the development due to the promise of Bank Guarantees from CAM and because of the intense involvement of CAM as a financial partner not only in the promotional material but also in the contract”.

CAM maintained in their defence that it was oblivious to transactions in the two ‘current accounts’ into which the buyer’s money was paid. However, in view of the documents submitted as evidence and the testimonies of those who managed the transactions in CAM and Cleyton GES, the judgment states that, “The fact is that CAM knew that the payments into Cleyton GES accounts opened at the CAM branches were payments by buyers on account of off-plan real estate purchases and CAM failed in its obligations as a financial institution under LEY 57/1968 and this behaviour can be described as malpractice”. The Judge noted that “it is clear the off-plan deposits were used in a manner contrary to the requirements of Spanish Law, LEY 57/1968”.

The Judgment also refers to the ‘special account’ and notes that, “documents submitted corroborate that the value of Bank Guarantees issued by CAM to other buyer, not party to these proceeding, amounts to approximately 6.5 million Euros, however the total payments into the ‘special account’ amount to significantly less”. Furthermore, the Judge says that “other documents submitted during the course of the trial are of importance and very interesting items are the copies of CAM Bank Guarantees issued to other buyers, not party to these proceedings, as they describe as ‘Special’ the 2 accounts, that CAM maintained throughout the trial were just ‘ordinary’”.

CONCLUSION

The Judgment concludes:

“The truth is that CAM knew that the payments made by buyers into accounts at their branches were on account of real estate purchases and CAM showed absolute disregard to the obligations imposed on financial institutions by LEY 57/1968.

We must not forget that the obligation to deposit the amounts advanced to an account opened specifically for that purpose is that of the financial institution as not only does it receive the premium of the guarantees but also benefits by way of profit from the project. In fact, CAM was the only financial entity involved in the project as it demanded exclusivity.

The claimant questioned at the trial clearly demonstrated that the buyers contacted both the developer and Bank through multiple means urging them to grant the Bank Guarantees for the deposits paid”.

APPEAL

As in any First Instance Court decision the defendants have the right of appeal.

COMMENTS FROM FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP

JAIME DE CASTRO - LAWYER

Jaime de Castro, the lawyer for the Finca Parcs Action Group said he was pleased with the ruling yesterday, and stressed that:

"It is technically flawless; it analyzes all the points, leaving no gaps and has forceful arguments that make it difficult to challenge. So I think that ultimately my clients will receive their refund in this case”

He noted that it is a decision which because of the significance of the case will be an important precedent for similar cases, and is also:

"Good for the image of Spain, its Justice System and even the financial system. Given the sensitivity of this type of issue in the United Kingdom, and the situation we are currently facing in Spain, it is good to convey the message that the system works and solves these issues fairly and expeditiously”.

KEITH RULE – COORDINATOR – FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP

After the group coordinator, Keith Rule was informed of the decision, he said the group members were elated, but commented that "it has been a very stressful process and we have endured many years of struggle and effort to defend our rights"

Keith continues: “For us this is a great judgment. It is a credit to the work and determination of all those involved. This is an important judgment as none of the buyers received the Bank Guarantees as required by Spanish Law, LEY 57/1968. The wider significance of this judgment should not be underestimated.

I really think this case and Judgment will be studied far and wide. As the news spreads there will be many very interested observers.

Unfortunately it does not mean that every other buyer of off-plan property in Spain without the legally required Bank Guarantees will be able to follow the same course of action against the Bank. There were several specifics in this case and the volume of evidence gathered, in our opinion, is probably unprecedented. However, parallels can be drawn between this case and similar cases on other developments and undoubtedly this First Instance Court Judgment will be used, not as a precedent, as Case Law is only established by an Appeal Court or Higher Court, but as an argument in many other future Lawsuits.

KEITH RULE’S COMMENTS ON THE LIABILITES OF THE BANKS ACCORDING TO LEY 57/1968

The Finca Parcs Action Group is represented by Costa Luz Lawyers and De Castro Gabinete Jurídico. We are truly grateful for the professionalism, dedication, hard work and support of our legal team during the past 4 years. Special thanks go to María de Castro whom I first contacted in 2008 and to Jaime de Castro, our litigator, with whom I have had the pleasure of working with very closely on this case during the past 2 years.

It now seems strange to think that in 2007 when we first realised there was a problem with the Finca Parcs project I was unable to find a single Lawyer who shared my view that the Banks had a liability in these type of cases. That was until 2008 when I found María de Castro and Costa Luz Lawyers via the Eye on Spain internet forum. If a little sceptical at first María soon realised that I was not going give up and there was only one way forward – legal action against the developer and Bank. We encountered many hurdles along the way, not least from other Lawyers who, for various reasons, did not share our philosophy.

FAIR AND TIMELY JUSTICE

As I have said many times before, the Spanish Law which grants inalienable rights to protect off-plan purchasers is not new. It was introduced in 1968; the problem is that it has been conveniently ignored by the developers and financial institutions over the past decade. The Bank of Spain and Spanish Government failed to enforce the Law and many Court Judgments over the past few years have failed to apply LEY 57/1968 correctly. The ‘spirit’ of LEY 57/1968 and its preamble are of vital importance if one is to truly understand the purpose of the Law and the reasons for its introduction.

The Finca Parcs Judgment quoted extensively not only from the Law itself but from the preamble of LEY 57/1968 and it shows that when the Law is applied correctly the Spanish Justice System works and that fair and timely justice can be delivered.

For far too long Spain has alienated the very people who once helped the country prosper.

Now the Spanish Government must learn important lessons from this case and from the Bank Guarantees in Spain Petition (www.bankguaranteesinspain.com). If these types of Bank Guarantee cases are dealt with in a fair and speedy manner then maybe some of those people who have been the victims of negligence and malpractice may once again have the confidence to invest in Spanish property. After all that is what Spain wants and more importantly, desperately needs.

Right now as the Finca Parcs Action Group we are enjoying the moment and focussing on the positives. But we are realistic and understand that although we have made a massive leap forward in our fight for justice we are not yet over the finishing line. We will be making a preliminary enforcement of the Judgment but also preparing ourselves for any appeal that may be submitted by either defendant.

Should an appeal be forthcoming then it will be heard by the Appeal Court in Albacete and the decision of that court would then set a precedent and may be used as Case Law in other Lawsuits.

NOTE: BANK GUARANTEES AT LAS HIGUERICAS, FINCA PARCS

Other buyers at Las Higuericas, Finca Parcs who did receive the legally required Bank Guarantees from CAM, have during the past 3 years been able to execute their Bank Guarantees and receive refunds. However, some of these buyers also encountered problems and were forced into taking individual legal action to execute their Bank Guarantees as CAM initially refused to honour the Bank Guarantees in many cases.

VICTORY FOR FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP IN THE FIRST INSTANCE COURT

2012-06-09T01:07:45

FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP vs CLEYTON GES SL & CAJA DE AHORROS DEL MEDITERRÁNEO

Today (Friday 8 June) we received the judgment from the First Instance Court In Hellín:

The Judge found the developer Cleyton GES SL and the Bank - Caja de Ahorros del Mediterráneo (CAM) jointly and severally liable for the repayment in full of the deposits paid (1,494,710 Euros) under the 55 Sales Contracts which were the subject of the Lawsuit, together with legal interest and costs.

This is a significant judgment as none of the buyers received the Bank Guarantees as required by Spanish Law, LEY 57/1968.

The Finca Parcs Action Group are represented by Costa Luz Lawyers and De Castro Gabinete Jurídico. We are truly grateful for their dedication, hard work and support during the past 4 years. Special thanks go to María de Castro - back in 2008 she was one of the only Lawyers who believed in my view that the Banks had a liability in such cases and to Jaime de Castro, our litigator, with whom I have worked very closely during the past 2 years.

We are currently studying the Judgment in more detail and further information will follow soon.

As in every First Instance Court judgment the defendants have the right of appeal.

Kind regards

Keith
FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP

INTERVIEW WITH KEITH RULE ON TELEVISIÓN HELLÍN

2012-05-25T14:36:21

Interview with Keith Rule on Televisión Hellín following the conclusion of the Las Higuericas, Finca Parcs trial

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R88i-ISs2As (english version)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmNsF4Nh-yQ (dubbed version)

FINCA PARCS - TRIAL OF THE YEAR IN HELLÍN

2012-05-25T14:22:25

PRESS / MEDIA RELEASE - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP vs CAJA DE AHORROS DEL MEDITERRÁNEO (CAM BANK) & SPANISH DEVELOPER, CLEYTON GES SL

REPORT ON THE ‘TRIAL OF THE YEAR’ IN HELLÍN

70 GROUP MEMBERS GATHERED IN HELLÍN FOR A TRIAL DESCRIBED IN THE LOCAL PRESS AS “THE TRIAL OF THE YEAR” (EL JUICIO DEL ANO) AND “ONE OF THE LARGEST AND MOST COMPLEX TRIALS EVER HELD IN HELLÍN”

FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP

● No legally required Bank Guarantees for Off-Plan deposits totalling 1.5 million Euros
● Lawsuit against CAM Bank & developer Cleyton GES SL filed in February 2011

● First Instance Court Preliminary Hearing held on 12 January 2012
● Trial commenced Monday 21 May 2012

OUR MISSION

To recover our Off-Plan Deposits paid in good faith to Cleyton GES SL & Caja de Ahorros del Mediterráneo (CAM Bank), which according to Spanish Law, in particular, LEY 57/68 Article 1.2, "must be deposited in a Special Account, with separation from any other funds belonging to the promoter, which may only contain funds deposited for the construction of dwellings. For the opening of these accounts or deposits the Banking institution or Savings bank (in this case CAM Bank), under its responsibility, will demand the bank guarantee to which the previous condition (Article 1.1) refers”.

FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP GATHER IN SPAIN

70 members of the Finca Parcs Action Group arrived in Hellín on Sunday 20 May after being called to appear in person by CAM Bank – one of the co-defendants in Hellín’s ‘Trial of the Year’.

First stop for the group was a visit to the Las Higuericas Finca Parcs development which was abandoned in 2009 by Spanish property developer Cleyton GES SL, the other defendant in the trial.

THE EVE OF THE TRIAL

The trial scheduled to last 4 days commenced on Monday 21 May 2012 in the First Instance Court in Hellín following the filing in February 2011 of a 1000 page Lawsuit against property developer Cleyton GES SL and the sole financial entity of the project, Caja de Ahorros del Mediterráneo. The Lawsuit was filed in order to recover 1.5 million Euros of off-plan deposits paid to CAM Bank between 2005 and 2007 by FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP members, in relation to their Sales Contracts for the Las Higuericas Finca Parcs development.

On the eve of the trial Juan Munoz, the lawyer representing developer Cleyton GES SL explained that:

“Cleyton GES SL is now in negative equity caused by different factors including lack of support from the financier of the project, CAM Bank”. Munoz says that although they will continue fighting for the ‘continuation of the project’, the current economic situation means they cannot fund the completion of infrastructure works or to fulfil the agreement with the Hellín Town Hall.

For this reason, he added, Cleyton GES decided “to seek a partnership formed with several partners and companies with a proven financial solvency and extensive experience in the construction sector”.

Cleyton GES also regret that, “CAM did not want to discuss the future of the project and therefore does not have any respect for the rights of the buyers. Cleyton GES hoped to expose those company representatives and despite everything hoped to reach a negotiated solution with “all sides lowering their claims to obtain an overall benefit”

In response, Keith Rule, co-ordinator of Finca Parcs Action Group stated: “We have suffered extreme stress and heartache over the past 5 years due to the actions of Cleyton GES and CAM Bank. We were promised a dream of owning a house in an idyllic location in a natural park with a lake, however that dream has turned into a nightmare. It is clear the project will never succeed while Cleyton GES and CAM are involved. They are unable to work together and we are the victims of their negligence, deception and illegal use of our off-plan deposits. We want nothing more than what is our inalienable legal right granted by Spanish Law, LEY 57/1968 which is a full refund of our deposit together with legal interest and costs”.

PROTEST

At 9:30am on Monday 21 May, 70 members of the Finca Parcs Action Group held a peaceful demonstration outside the CAM Branch on the Gran Via in Hellin. They held banners and placards demanding the return of their money and calling for the law guaranteeing these amounts to be enforced. The banner also quoted the words of the Bank of Spain Governor which described CAM as ‘Scandalous’ and ‘The Worst of The Worst’.

PROTEST OUTSIDE CAM BRANCH ON GRAN VIA IN HELLIN

From there they marched in an orderly manner to Hellin’s First Instance Court where they held a further peaceful protest prior to the commencement of the trial.

THE TRIAL – DAY ONE

The trial began at 10:45 with the presiding judge Consuelo Romero. The claimants, members of Finca Parcs Action Group were represented by Jaime de Castro. The defendants were represented by Pablo Toran for CAM Bank and Juan Munoz for Cleyton GES SL.

The first session allowed each of the parties to state their position. Although miles apart the positions are quite clear. Finca Parcs Action Group consider that all the promotional material and contracts confirm that the corresponding Bank Guarantees should have been issued by CAM as they did for other buyers in the project who had paid deposits to the same accounts. As no house was delivered both defendants should be made liable.

For Cleyton GES SL, its current owner, Pedro Jimenez Penalver explained that the company he took over about 3 years ago intended to finish the work and deliver the houses. He stated that he did not know what happened prior to his involvement in the company and therefore as the contracts subject to this litigation were signed between 2005 and 2007 he could not answer most of the questions put to him. The most repeated phrase in his testimony was ‘I have no idea’.

OBLIVIOUS

In the case of CAM their argument was that they have honoured Bank Guarantees which they issued to some buyers, but they have no relationship with members of the Finca Parcs Action Group as they did not formalise a contract of guarantee with the Bank.

One issue that gained most attention during the session was that of Bank Accounts. CAM’s Lawyer insisted that, by law, the amounts paid in advance for off-plan property should be deposited in a special account and the funds should be used exclusively for the building of the houses. But he said that Cleyton GES operated 3 accounts at CAM, two of which were ordinary current accounts and that legally bank guarantees can only be issued on money paid to the special account.

However, Keith Rule, who testified for the victims insisted that they were told by Cleyton GES that the 3 accounts were special accounts and in fact 200 Bank Guarantees were issued to other buyers in the project who paid into the same bank accounts as members of the Finca Parcs Action Group. Furthermore the 3 accounts were described as Cuenta Corriente Especial (Special Accounts) on each of the Bank Guarantees issued to other buyers.

Julian Herrera, asset manager of CAM, stated in his testimony that although the accounts may have been called ‘Special’ on other Bank Guarantees, the fact is that “there is only one special account for this promotion and the other two are just ordinary accounts”. He explained that CAM did not receive a request for Bank Guarantees from any of the victims and said that although the Sales Contracts stated that the Bank Guarantees would be issued by CAM, this did not make CAM liable to issue them.

He also confirmed that CAM demanded repeatedly that Cleyton GES transfer buyer’s deposits from the ordinary accounts to the special account, to avoid prejudicing the buyers. He stated that CAM was oblivious to the transactions going through the ordinary accounts.

Jaime de Castro, representing the members of Finca Parcs Action Group stated that although the Special Account was opened in November 2005 the account remained with a zero balance and was not used until June 2007. However, by the time of the first credit into the Special Account on 13 June 2007, CAM had already issued Bank Guarantees to other buyers on the development during the period November 2005 to May 2007 which amounted in value to over 4.5 million Euros.

Of the three persons who testified during Monday’s session, the one who spoke most strongly was Keith Rule, the co-ordinator of Finca Parcs Action Group who himself paid more than 50,000 Euros to CAM. With the help of a translator, he insisted that group members were encouraged to reserve at Finca Parcs due to the promise on all the promotional material and in the contract of Bank Guarantees issued by CAM, who at that time were described as the 4^th biggest savings bank in Spain.

But he added that despite repeatedly demanding the Bank Guarantees during 2007 from Cleyton GES SL nothing was forthcoming, only broken promises. He demonstrated that in 2008 they demanded Bank Guarantees directly with CAM Bank via email to the CAM Manager, Fernando Martinez Hernandez at the Murcia Branch to which the money was transferred, however there was no response. He explained that they then demanded the Bank Guarantees from CAM’s London office and that in January 2009 they had a 3 hour meeting with the London Manager, Aurelio Pedros who advised them to submit the complaint directly to the Alicante head office of CAM. This they did in February 2009, however by the end of 2009 CAM denied any liability and they referred their complaint by email to Roberto Lopez Abad and Modesto Crespo, CAM’s CEO and President, respectively. An email reply was received in the names of Lopez-Abad and Crespo; however this stated that ‘if you do not have a Bank Guarantee then you have no relationship with this entity’.

The Judge decided with the agreement of all parties that after hearing the testimony from one claimant it was not necessary to repeat a similar questioning of each of the buyers. So the other 46 applicants did not have to testify.

THE SURPRISING OFFER “Would you accept a house from the ones that are built instead of money”
THE REPLY “We cannot trust any of you as we have been robbed and cheated for many years”

Juan Munoz, Lawyer for Cleyton GES, at one point in the interrogation of Keith Rule offered to the victims the possibility of existing houses instead of a refund. Mr Rule was especially forceful in responding to this offer, as he said that Cleyton GES and CAM have ‘stolen the money’, lied ‘over and over again’ throughout the years, violated Spanish Law and its own promises therefore we cannot trust you anymore.

Jaime de Castro responded on behalf of the victims by saying, “Cleyton GES cannot offer these properties simply because they are no longer yours to offer”. In his view the bank and developer have the “same level of responsibility” in this matter.

Pedro Jimenez Penalver, manager of Cleyton GES said that in Las Higuericas Finca Parcs, where he was planning to build more than 600 houses, that after 7 years there are 73 houses finished, and ‘seventy-something’ to which only needed 10 to 15% more work to complete. He also indicated that the urbanisation infrastructure is complete to around 75%-80%, and that the reason that no property has a Licence of First Occupation is because there was no way to solve problems such as the high tension electric cable which runs through the site for which Iberdrola should have carried out an environmental impact study and which was not done. He also criticised the attitude of CAM who took possession of the houses “which were the property of others”.

QUOTES FROM DAY ONE

“FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP” - Those affected say they have had enough of broken promises. Their spokesman, Keith Rule, stated that they only want to enforce the Law and receive their money back that they paid for houses which were not delivered.

“CONFIDENCE IN SPANISH JUSTICE” – Keith Rule, one of the victims, who acted as spokesman for the Finca Parcs Action Group, together with their Lawyer Jaime de Castro insisted that they trust in Spanish Justice and that their legal rights will be upheld. “The buyers, said de Castro, trust in the Spanish courts and I will also say that the Bank will respond if they are sentenced to do so. Even in these times where there is so much distrust, to favourably resolve a case like this can be good for the image of Spain around the world”.

THE TRIAL – DAY TWO

On day two several witnesses appeared to testify and each of the three parties to this case delivered their conclusions.

THE LAWYERS

JAIME DE CASTRO for the FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP
Calls for Cleyton GES and CAM to jointly refund the money

JUAN MUNOZ for Cleyton GES SL
He stressed that the firm is willing to continue the development

PABLO TORAN for Caja de Ahorros del Mediterraneo (CAM)
He claims that CAM has no direct relationship with the plaintiffs and owes nothing……

The trial of Las Higuericas Finca Parcs was completed on day 2, in half the time originally planned.

The plaintiffs, who claim their money was deposited in Cleyton GES accounts at the funding entity CAM, confirmed their evidence and must now wait for Judgment.

The three hours of Day 2 of the trial began at 10:30 with the witness testimony of Enrique Ros, representative of the company Lauara Europea SL (the company that has agreed to take over the obligations of completing the project).

Then ex-employees of Cleyton GES SL were called to testify. The first being Antonio Jose Veas Arteseros, who worked for Cleyton GES from 2004 until April 2009. He said that CAM was fully funding the project and fully endorsing and paying for everything relating to the urbanisation. His involvement with the Bank Guarantees was to send an application to CAM for each of the contracts.

All the witness interrogations, except for that of Patricia Ramos Calderon, architect from the Hellin Town Hall, focussed on the CAM bank accounts to which the buyer’s deposits were paid.

Gerardo Cantore, sales manager of Cleyton GES from 2004 to 2009 revealed that in relation to the Bank Guarantees he went to the CAM offices in person with two lawyers, “because first CAM said one thing and then changed their criteria”

Ramon Ramiro Mauleon, another ex-employee of Cleyton GES from 2001 to 2009 said that “when he initially presented the project to several banks, CAM agreed to fund the project in totality. Banks were queuing to fund the project”.

Fernando Martinez Hernandez, an employee of CAM confirmed that he was the business manager at the Branch in which the Cleyton GES accounts were operated. He confirmed that CAM issued Bank Guarantees for deposits which were not necessarily paid to the special account.

When shown copies of several Bank Guarantees, many of which he had signed, from the 200 that CAM had issued on the development for deposits paid to the same accounts as those deposits paid by members of the Finca Parcs Action Group he said he did not know why this happened and why on each bank guarantee the 3 accounts were described as ‘Special Accounts’.

Furthermore, Fernando Martinez, when shown several bank account extracts, was unable to explain why CAM authorised many withdrawals from the Special Account, in complete contravention of the requirements of LEY 57/1968 including a cash withdrawal in excess of 80,000 Euros.

He added that none of the buyers ever demanded Bank Guarantees directly with CAM and that this issue was only managed between the developer and the buyers.

When questioned he ‘could not remember’ receiving emails from Keith Rule in 2008 demanding CAM to issue Bank Guarantees nor ‘could he remember’ ever seeing Keith Rule or any other buyers at his CAM Branch to demand the Bank Guarantees in person.

Patricia Ramos Calderon, municipal architect, who had visited the site, stated that according to the environmental impact Law of 2007, there was a requirement for the removal of the high tension electricity cable running through the development, which was the obligation of the developer and that no First Occupation Licences could be issued until this was done.

The final witness was a representative from the electric company, Iberdrola. However, during the first question the Judge intervened to state that it was not necessary to question this witness as nothing he may say would affect the case.

After a break of 5 minutes, Jaime de Castro, Lawyer for the Finca Parcs Action Group delivered his conclusions in which he sated that “due to bad practices my clients have been harmed”. He argued that the actions of the Bank and developer must not affect the buyers and that all 3 accounts were presented as special and that it was always understood that deliveries to these accounts must have the corresponding Bank Guarantees, by Law.

He stressed that the involvement of CAM in the project was so intense, something that he had demonstrated since the beginning, that Cleyton GES and CAM “should be condemned jointly and severally” to repay the sums paid by the purchasers that never received their homes.

CAM’s Lawyer, Pablo Toran, argued just the opposite. He said Cleyton GES bore responsibility, accusing it of not fulfilling its commitments, especially when it came to handling money from the promotion in the special account and ordinary accounts. He pleaded therefore that CAM be absolved of any liability in this case, insisting that the plaintiffs did not have any contractual relationship with CAM.

In his concluding speech Juan Munoz, Lawyer for Cleyton GES SL said that there are available sufficient financial means to continue with the urbanisation and to fix the problem of the high tension Iberdrola electric cable. He opposed both the demands for contract cancellation and for refunds. He insisted that Cleyton GES ‘wants to move on’…………..

The trial was completed in 2 days and now sentencing is awaited which in principle may be delivered within 20 days.

Following the conclusion of the trial, Keith Rule, co-ordinator of the Finca Parcs Action Group comments:

“Our relationship with CAM is not primarily derived from the contract, but from the Law, LEY 57/1968. For the opening of the Special Accounts CAM must be vigilant. CAM is responsible for ensuring that all payments to the promoter for the construction of housing is credited to the special accounts, without deviation.

CAM was the sole financial entity of the Las Higuericas Finca Parcs project and received all the off-plan deposits though it’s branch in Murcia.

We must not suffer any prejudice or harm due to the failure in the relationship between CAM and Cleyton GES SL nor as a result of CAM’s negligence and lack of due diligence particularly in respect of its complete failure to observe the requirements of LEY57/1968.

There has been a fraudulent use of our off-plan deposit money which amounts to 1.5 million Euros and CAM has been a party to this fraud over a 5 year period.

CAM failed to control, supervise or audit the activities of Cleyton GES and this is evidenced by the fact that they allowed and authorised illegal withdrawals from the Special Account.

There has been a complete failure by both defendants to observe Spanish Law, in particular LEY 57/1968.

In approximately 25 court judgements during the past 2 years Cleyton GES has been declared as ‘Whereabouts Unknown’. However in this case, not only did they defend our Lawsuit but actually appeared in person at the trial.

We are the innocent victims of this corruption and we are confident that a verdict will be delivered condemning both defendants jointly and severally liable for the refund of our deposits, together with legal interest and costs.

Only then will it be possible for us once again to have trust and confidence in Spain.

I would like to thank all our group members who travelled to Spain at their own expense and who have, like me, suffered unnecessary stress and heartache over the past 5 years due to Cleyton GES SL and CAM Bank.

I also give thanks to our legal team without whom it would not have been possible to bring the defendants to trial. Maria de Castro from Costa Luz Lawyers has been a tower of strength throughout the last 4 years both with the initial study of our case and with the continuing study of Case Law related to Banks liabilities according to LEY 57/1968.

Our litigator, Jaime de Castro, from De Castro Gabinete Juridico has worked tirelessly on this issue which we feel resulted in a very comprehensive Lawsuit and a very strong delivery of the facts and evidence at the trial.

Finally thanks to Hotel Emilio in Hellin who provided us with superb facilities and service throughout our stay in Hellin. Our issues are not with the town or people of Hellin, but with the actions of Cleyton GES SL and Caja de Ahorros del Mediterraneo.

We now await the verdict with interest.

Note: Additional reporting courtesy of La Verdad

NOTA DE PRENSA - MAY 2012 - FINCA PARCS GRUPO DE ACCIÓN

2012-05-11T18:14:24

NOTA DE PRENSA- PARA PUBLICACIÓN INMEDIATA

FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP vs CAJA DE AHORROS DEL MEDITERRÁNEO (CAM BANK) & PROMOTOR ESPAÑOL CLEYTON GES SL – 4 DÍAS DE JUICIO QUE COMIENZAN EL LUNES 21 DE MAYO DE 2012.

70 PERSONAS, MIEMBROS DE ESTE GRUPO, HAN SIDO LLAMADOS A INTERROGATORIO POR UNO DE LOS CO-DEMANDADOS, LA CAJA DE AHORROS DEL MEDITERRANEO

FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP

● Inexistencia de garantías para devolución de cantidades en compraventas sobre plano que hacen un total de 1,5 millones de euros.
● Demanda contra CAM Bank & promotor Cleyton GES SL interpuesta en Febrero de 2011.

● Audiencia Previa celebrada el pasado 12 de Enero de 2012
● Juicio programado para cuatro días que comienzan el 21 de Mayo de 2012.

NUESTRO OBJETIVO

Recuperar las cantidades que entregamos a cuenta de buena fe a Cleyton Ges SL y Caja de Ahorros del Mediterráneo (CAM), que, de acuerdo con el derecho español y en concreto la Ley 57/68, artículo 1.2 "deben depositarse en cuenta especial, con separación de cualquier otra clase de fondos pertenecientes al promotor y de las que únicamente podrá disponer para las atenciones derivadas de la construcción de viviendas. Para la apertura de estas cuentas o depósitos la entidad bancaria o Caja de Ahorros, (en este caso la CAM) bajo su responsabilidad, exigirá la garantía a que se refiere la condición anterior (Artículo 1.1)”

EL JUICIO

Un juicio de 4 días comenzará el próximo 21 de Mayo de 2012 en los Juzgados de Primera Instancia de Hellín, después de que la demanda fuese admitida a trámite en Febrero de 2012. La demanda, de 1000 páginas se interpuso contra el promotor inmobiliario Cleyton Ges SL y el Banco que financiaba las obras, Caja de Ahorros del Mediterráneo. El objetivo de la demanda es recuperar las cantidades entregadas a cuenta a la CAM entre 2005 y 2007 por las personas integrantes de este grupo, en relación con contratos de compraventa en la promoción Las Higuericas Finca Parcs.

70 personas de este grupo tienen programado viajar, por sus propios medios desde diversas partes del Reino Unido e Irlanda para asistir al juicio de Primera Instancia que se celebrará en Hellín, habiendo sido convocados por el Juzgado a petición de uno de los co-demandados la CAM.

El Coordinador del Grupo, Keith Rule, manifestó: “Son derechos irrenunciables al amparo de la Ley 57/68, que nuestras cantidades se depositasen en una cuenta especial y que fuesen protegidas por avales bancarios individualizados. En contra de lo que establece la Ley española, el promotor Cleyton Ges SL junto con la CAM, que financiaba el proyecto y aceptó las entregas a cuentas de nuestras cantidades, incumplieron lo que establece la Ley”

“Hemos estado pidiendo nuestros avales bancarios desde 2007 e incluso visitamos la sucursal de las CAM donde se transfirieron nuestras cantidades y las oficinas centrales de la CAM en Murcia y Londres, sin embargo, no dieron respuesta a nuestras reclamaciones. Finalmente, en 2009, antes de comenzar nuestras acciones legales dirigimos nuestra reclamación a Roberto López Abad y Modesto Crespo, Director General y Presidente de la CAM respectivamente. Nos contestaron por email diciendo: “Si no tienen aval, no tienen relación alguna con esta entidad”

“A pesar de abandonar el proyecto en 2009, ni el promotor ni la CAM nos devolvieron nuestro dinero. Durante los últimos tres años el promotor ha sido declarado en “paradero desconocido”. Es por ello por lo que no hemos tenido más remedio que embarcarnos en este batalla judicial tan lenta, costosa y estresante”.

Keith continua, “Ha sido un enorme ejercicio de logística concertar vuelos, alojamiento y traslados desde aeropuertos de los 70 miembros del grupo; sin embargo al día de hoy está todo organizado y estamos preparados para enfrentarnos al promotor y al Banco en el Juzgado. El Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Hellín es relativamente pequeño y deberá suministrar intérpretes y dispositivos especiales para gestionar el gran número de reclamantes llamados al interrogatorio”

INFORMACION GENERAL

Los miembros del Grupo pagaron sus cantidades anticipadas, un total de 1.5 millones de euros, entre 2005 y 2007 con cargo a la compra de propiedades en Las Higuericas Finca Parcs, transfiriéndolas a cuentas de la CAM a nombre del promotor Cleyton Ges SL.

Ningunos de los miembros de este grupo recibió las garantías bancarias que establece la Ley 57/68.

La promoción inmobiliaria de interior, cercana al pueblo de Agramón, está a 15 km de Hellín y a 80 km de Albacete y Murcia. A pesar el marketing que se desplegó durante un periodo de 5 años como promoción para la práctica del deporte y el tiempo libre, el promotor Cleyton GES SL abandonó el proyecto en Mayo de 2009 bajo la afirmación de que era “financieramente inviable”. La promoción con 617 parcelas divididas en 5 fases permanece en estado de abandono, habiéndose construido solo 50 propiedades de la Fase 1. De estas, y por problemas del terreno, ninguna tiene Licencia de Primera Ocupación.

BANCO DE ESPAÑA & CAJA DE AHORROS DEL MEDITERRÁNEO

En la rueda de prensa de Septiembre de 2011, el Gobernador del Banco de España Miguel Ángel Fernández Ordóñez calificó el comportamiento de los directivos de la CAM como de “escandaloso” y dijo que el Banco era “lo peor de lo peor”

La CAM fue adquirida en 2011 por el Banco de Sabadell por el precio de un euro con las pérdidas siendo aseguradas por el Banco de España.

FALTA DE AVALES BANCARIOS- ENORME PROBLEMA EN ESPAÑA

La situación en la que se encuentran los miembros de FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP es la misma en la que se encuentran muchos compradores sobre plano en España.

Más de 500 afectados por este mismo problema han enviado sus casos a la Petición que al respecto se lleva a cabo a través de este web: BANK GUARANTEES IN SPAIN website: www.bankguaranteesinspain.com

Al día de hoy hay diversos pronunciamientos de Audiencias Provinciales ( Santander, Cantabria, Burgos, Alicante, Murcia etc.), el Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Navarra y varias Sentencias de tribunales de Primera Instancia que han fallado a favor de compradores en esta misma situación de acuerdo con lo que establece la Ley 57/68.

Spanish Off-Plan Property - Bank Guarantees - LEY 57/68

FINCA PARCS - NO SUPREME COURT APPEAL FROM CAM BANK – CASE CLOSED

LETTER FROM THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT

PRESS RELEASE - CAM BANK FINCA PARCS APPEAL DISMISSED

VICTORY FOR FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP IN THE ALBACETE APPEAL COURT

The Supreme Court Annuls Ground Clauses (Cláusulas Suelo) in Mortgages where there is 'Lack of Transparency'

RTN - Anxious wait over CAM appeal

PRESS RELEASE - FINCA PARCS - APPEAL SENTENCE DUE MARCH 2013

LEY 57/1968 - APPEAL COURT RULING AGAINST A BANK

TRAMPOLIN - A MONUMENTAL FRAUD

ARTICLE FROM LA VERDAD – 9 DEC 2012: TRAMPOLIN HILLS 1507 POTENTIAL VICTIMS VALUE OF FRAUD - APPROX 62 MILLION EUROS VICTIMS FROM 34 SPANISH PROVINCES AND 6 EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

Más de 40 alicantinos reclaman 1,4 millones por una estafa inmobiliaria

El monumental fraude en dos urbanizaciones fantasma en la Región de Murcia deja atrapados también a otro medio centenar de clientes valencianos

LAS CIFRAS

1.507 Potenciales perjudicados figuran en la causa

62 Millones de euros ronda el montante total del fraude

34 Provincias españolas y 6 países europeos albergan a las víctimas de Trampolín Hills

Una entidad suiza con sede en Panamá

FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP - APPEAL COURT DECISION DUE IN MARCH 2013

FINCA PARCS GRUPO DE ACCIÓN - LA SENTENCIA DE APELACIÓN SE DICTARÁN EN MARZO DE 2013

LAS HIGUERICAS FINCA PARCS - BUYER WINS AGAINST CAM BANK IN MURCIA APPEAL COURT

NOTA DE PRENSA - LA CAM CONSIGNA LA TOTALIDAD DE LAS CANTIDADES

PRESS RELEASE - PAYMENT OF FULL AMOUNT BY CAM BANK

NOTA DE PRENSA - APELACIÓN DE BANCO CAM

PRESS RELEASE - CAM BANK APPEAL

LAS HIGUERICAS FINCA PARCS SENTENCE

Daily Telegraph Article - 19 June 2012

Daily Telegraph British expats beat Spanish bank in six-year property feud

A Spanish bank that refused to return off-plan deposits belonging to 47 British expats who invested in a failed Spanish property development has been ordered to repay €1.5million, following a six-year legal battle.

THANK YOU

FINCA PARCS GRUPO DE ACCIÓN - NOTA DE PRENSA TRAS LA SENTENCIA

FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP - PRESS RELEASE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT

VICTORY FOR FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP IN THE FIRST INSTANCE COURT

INTERVIEW WITH KEITH RULE ON TELEVISIÓN HELLÍN

FINCA PARCS - TRIAL OF THE YEAR IN HELLÍN

NOTA DE PRENSA - MAY 2012 - FINCA PARCS GRUPO DE ACCIÓN

ARTICLE FROM LA VERDAD – 9 DEC 2012:

TRAMPOLIN HILLS

1507 POTENTIAL VICTIMS

VALUE OF FRAUD - APPROX 62 MILLION EUROS

VICTIMS FROM 34 SPANISH PROVINCES AND 6 EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

Daily Telegraph

British expats beat Spanish bank in six-year property feud