Through a landmark decission, the Supreme Court has just stated the banks liability under Law 57/1968 before the buyers, confirming their obbligation to refund the deposits paid for non-built properties.
The case at hand, quite usual in our days, off-plan buyers paid the deposits agreed with the developer in advance, but they didn't get an individual certificate of guarantee (or BG).
The developer had signed colective insurance policies with the banks BBVA & Banco Popular and with the insurance company SGR to cover the refund of deposits in case the properties were not built or not finished in time.
The banks refused their liability arguing that they only covered those buyers in favour of whom they had issued individual cettificates.
The Supreme Court states in this landmark ruling that the right to be refunded comes out not from the individual certificate, but from the policy itself, and that any off-plan buyer comes under the cover of the colective insurance policy just by paying the agreed deposits.
This is great news for all those buyers who saw their monies fly away when the developer went into bankrupcy (many cases in the latest years, such as Trampolin Hills, Santa Ana del Monte, Aifos, Fortuna Hills, La Tercia Real, etc.) and the properties were never finished (sometimes, even not started to be built), that now can claim their money back, with the support of a landmark decission from the Supreme Court.
Even though, this line of reasoning has been held in the latest years by our Firm (and others), bringing succesful legal actions against those banks receiving the funds.
After several favourable rulings (many of them yet executed), it's a big support that Supreme Court confirms this, understanding that the mere payment of the agreed amounts puts the buyers under the protection of the policy, as this kind of guarantees are considered as a collective insurance.
This will encourage all those not claiming yet to do so, and will give peace of mind to those already in the process awaiting for a decission or the confirmation of the one they had.
Find below a link to the relevant piece of news and also to the full text of the ruling:
http://www.legaltoday.com/actualidad/noticias/el-supremo-dictamina-que-la-falta-de-un-aval-individual-en-las-polizas-colectivas-no-impide-estar-asegurado
http://www.poderjudicial.es/search/doAction?action=contentpdf&databasematch=TS&reference=7479879&links=Ley%2057%2F1968&optimize=20150929&publicinterface=true