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

El blog de Maria

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

Legal tip 1285. NEW! Case won against CAJAMAR, BANCO POPULAR & BANCO SABADELL in PENINSULA PROJECT MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT: RESIDENCIAL GRANADA GREEN
27 March 2015 @ 14:39

Details of an excellent Sentence won against 3 banks and just notified to a client who had reserved off-plan from Peninsula Project Management SL at Residencial Granada Green.

Re: YOUR CASE AGAINST CAJAS RURALES REUNIDAS SOCIEDAD COOPERATIVA DE CREDITO (CAJAMAR), BANCO POPULAR ESPAÑOL S.A. & BANCO DE SABADELL S.A.

 

Please find attached Sentence number XX/2015 from the First Instance Court No.4 in Granada.

 

Your case against CAJAS RURALES REUNIDAS SOCIEDAD COOPERATIVA DE CREDITO (CAJAMAR), BANCO POPULAR ESPAÑOL S.A. & BANCO DE SABADELL S.A. has been won.

 

The final paragraph of the First Instance Sentence delivered on 23 March 2015 and notified on 27 March 2015 states: 

 

 

“Estimating the Lawsuit filed on behalf of MR XXXXXX XXXXXXX and condemn:

 

CAJAS RURALES REUNIDAS SOCIEDAD COOPERATIVA DE CREDITO (CAJAMAR) to pay to the plaintiff XX,XXX0€ plus legal interest according to Article 3 of LEY 57/1968 from the date of filing of the Lawsuit.

 

and condemn:

 

BANCO DE SABADELL S.A. to pay to the plaintiff X,XXX€ plus legal interest according to Article 3 of LEY 57/1968 from the date of filing of the Lawsuit.

 

and condemn:

 

BANCO POPULAR S.A. to pay to the plaintiff X,XXX€ plus legal interest according to Article 3 of LEY 57/1968 from the date of filing of the Lawsuit.

 

With costs imposed on the defendants”

 

So CAJAS RURALES REUNIDAS SOCIEDAD COOPERATIVA DE CREDITO (CAJAMAR) is liable to refund the amount of XX,XXX€ plus legal interest from the date of filing the Lawsuit, BANCO DE SABADELL S.A. the amount of X,XXX€ plus legal interest from the date of filing the Lawsuit and BANCO POPULAR S.A. the amount of X,XXX€ plus legal interest from the date of filing of the Lawsuit until full payment to the Court.  Legal costs are imposed on the defendant Banks.

 

In the Sentence the Judge explains:

 

“In this case, in the ordinary procedure it is recognised that the amounts referred to in our procedure and also by the Insolvency Procedure of the Promotor are the same.  The plaintiff has presented sufficient documentation regarding the cheques deposited, the transfers and even letters communicating to which accounts the funds were paid.  In extracts of the accounts in front of this Court regarding the amounts claimed, there is sufficient data for the banks to conclude that the payments were from foreign persons or entities and for the purpose of housing purchases, so this data together with the nature of the business of the promotor that opened the accounts, means that extreme zeal should have been exercised by the defendant banks to require the line of guarantees or the existence of the guarantees, which negligently they did not do.

 

The breach of contract by the developer and non-recovery of amounts paid makes the banks responsible for the absence, and failure to demand, the guarantees that are the rights of the purchaser”

Villaluenga del Rosario, Cádiz, South of Spain, at facebook.com

 


Like 2




7 Comments


hosilverlining said:
27 March 2015 @ 15:36

Did the clients have bank guarantees? Or insurance guarantees?
Thank you


hosilverlining said:
27 March 2015 @ 15:37

This is very good news. Not a brick was ever laid for Granada Green, not even any foundations, nothing. So I am very pleased to hear that these clients got their money back.


mariadecastro said:
27 March 2015 @ 16:11

Dear Hosilverlining:

No, they did not have Guarantees or any sort. We have won the case against Banks which received deposits and did not ensure Guarantees existed according to Provision 1segundo of Law 57/68

Yes, it is very good PEOPLE are recovering their hard earned money

Cheers and have a great weekend

María


hosilverlining said:
28 March 2015 @ 16:36

Great news Maria! thanks for the information.


ads said:
29 March 2015 @ 19:35

Dear Maria,
Given the judges legal reasoning that you have identified from this case, I’m left to wonder which Bank would be deemed responsible for return of monies in the circumstance where developer breach was proven but deposited monies were placed into several developer accounts in different Banks to a Generic Guarantor Bank (i.e. no individual guarantees existed but a generic Bank Guarantee existed with links to the developer)?
Could this individual Bank liability, as identified in the case you have described above, result in a Guarantor Bank not being the Bank ultimately made responsible for return of monies, and the liability for return of monies would then remain with the individual Banks where monies were placed?
Would a claim against a generic Bank then fail under this circumstance?
I’d be really grateful for clarification.
Many thanks.



mariadecastro said:
30 March 2015 @ 10:53

Ads:
Just confirmed with Barristers, as there is a General Guarantoor liability is with it.


ads said:
30 March 2015 @ 15:29

Thank you Maria.
Much appreciated.
Kind regards.


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