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

El blog de Maria

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

Legal tip 1278. NEW! Appeal won against Corvera Phase I
13 March 2015 @ 18:49

Communicated to the client today:

 Provincial Appeal Court has upheld your Appeal, revoked the First Instance Sentence against you dated 16 January 2014 issued by the First Instance Court No.13 in Murcia and dismissed the Corvera counter-claim.

The final paragraph of the Provincial Appeal Court Sentence delivered on 3 March 2015 and notified on 12 March 2015 states: 

“Estimating the Lawsuit and dismissing the counter-claim in relation to xxxxx xxxxxxx with the cancellation of the Purchase Contract dated x September 2005 for the villa F1-xxxxxxxxx and Corvera condemned to return the amount of 138,030€ to the plaintiffs plus legal interest from the date the amounts were paid.

Without ruling on costs of both instances”

So the Provincial Appeal Court has revoked the First Instance Sentence and dismissed the Corvera counter-claim.  Your Purchase Contract is cancelled and Corvera is sentenced to refund the amount of 138,030€ plus legal interest from the date you paid the off-plan deposit to the developer.  

The Appeal Court has ruled that there is no imposition of costs for both instances.  Therefore each party will pay its own costs for the First Instance and Provincial Court Appeal.

CORVERA has 20 working days from the date of notification of the Sentence, which was 12 March 2015, to comply with the Sentence or to file a Cassation Appeal to the Supreme Court.

If a Cassation Appeal is filed by the defendant it will be necessary for us to file an Opposition to the Appeal on your behalf.

In this case, the client had not signed the " Loyalty agreement" that Corvera is using to win their appeals. 

Neverthelss, our hopes for winning some Supreme Court Appeals against Corvera are higher than before as this argument has been now contradicted by recent Supreme Court decission ( dated 20th of January 2015), which explains that if the buyer opts for an extension to the time allowed in the purchase contract, this needs to be expressly written in an addittional clause of the contract ( annex), specifying the new deadline and with the granting of a new guarantee.

Peñón del Mures, Ronda, Málaga, South eastern Spain, at


Like 1


antifreeze said:
16 March 2015 @ 00:16

Congratulations to you and your team Maria. Corvera failed to complete their builds on time, introduced 'bogus' loyalty agreements and failed to put in publicised facilities which formed the basis of their luxury branding to sell at high prices.

Hopefully, other judges will see the injustice of a large organisation 'mis-selling' with marketing and no intention to ever produce the facilities.

mariadecastro said:
16 March 2015 @ 10:23

Thanks for your kind words. We have presented today an Appeal before the Supreme Court on the use of the " loyalty agreements" as fully against law 57/68. There is already one decission by the Supreme Court which states, doing a beautiful interpretation of provision 3 of Law 57/68, that contract extensions in off plan purchases can never be " assumed" or "implicit" but express and explicit.
Let´s see!

antifreeze said:
16 March 2015 @ 23:26

Thanks Maria
A loyalty agreement is not a statuary contract agreed between a seller and buyer's lawyer - why have some judges not been able to see through this illegality for what it is in law? It is another illegality, on top of the other non benefits to consumers perpetrated by Corvera. It is a an abomination of the legal system and justice - Ley 57/68 set out to protect buyers but Corvera thought they could get round this by getting buyers to sign for free furniture when really, it was to see how far the law could be pushed as no test cases of this nature or magnitude had ever come to the courts in Spain - perhaps now Maria, this will serve as justice ALL consumers need - transparency and legal adherence to laws that exist.

mariadecastro said:
17 March 2015 @ 12:09


Supreme Court is producing great Court decissions on application of Law 57/68 recently. It brings my confidence up in regards to the Legal interpretation of the Loyal Agreements and Law 57/68



ads said:
17 March 2015 @ 22:16

Dear Maria,

Yes many congratulations, but there are other aspects to consider here.

How do these Supreme Court rulings help those for whom this comes too late in the day?
Those who did not have the opportunity to have their cases admitted to the SC?
Those for instance where a BG was amended to show an illegal date extension that was not in line with the purchase contract end date, nor annexed to the purchase contract and altered without knowledge and without express agreement from the purchaser? All of which was “overlooked” by the judge (contra legem ruling) when he dismissed a successful 1st instance ruling in favour of the developer?

Likewise for those who did not receive timely judicial recognition of non provision of LFOs by the end date stipulated in the purchase contract, entitling them to timely return of their deposited monies?

How can those subjected to illegal acts of this nature ever be retrospectively recompensed (return of monies and legal costs) given they were ALWAYS illegal activities, in effect an abuse of inalienable rights according to existing law Ley 57/68?

All that appears to be happening is that Ley 57/68 law is being recognised by the SC for what was intended in the first place, namely to protect offplan deposited monies and in the event of breach those monies should be returned!

How are those who to date have had their inalienable rights compromised in this way ever to gain justice and rightful return of their monies and costs if they are never allowed to have these inalienable rights retrospectively recognised?

mariadecastro said:
18 March 2015 @ 16:23

Action against Guarantoor now?

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


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