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 1386.LEY 57/1968 WON CASE in FIRST INSTANCE COURT AGAINST BBVA FOR OUR CLIENT WHO PURCHASED AN OFF-PLAN PROPERTY FROM THE DEVELOPER PROCOBAR S.A. AT OCHANDO GOLF/LO ESCOBAR IN SUCINA, MURCIA
06 May 2016 @ 13:30

LEY 57/1968 WON CASE in FIRST INSTANCE COURT AGAINST BBVA FOR OUR CLIENT WHO PURCHASED AN OFF-PLAN PROPERTY FROM THE DEVELOPER PROCOBAR S.A. AT OCHANDO GOLF/LO ESCOBAR IN SUCINA, MURCIA

We were extremely pleased to inform our client recently that we had won their case against BBVA in the First Instance Court.

The client paid their off-plan deposit to the developer’s account at BBVA.  The client did not receive an individual Guarantee for their off-plan deposit from the developer, Procobar S.A. or from BBVA, the Bank to which their off-plan deposit was paid and that bank that financed the development.


Re: YOUR CASE AGAINST BBVA S.A.
PO xxx/2014

Please find attached Sentence No. xxx/2016 from the First Instance Court No.2 in Murcia.

Your case against BBVA S.A. has been partially won.

The final paragraph of the First Instance Sentence delivered on 15 April 2016 and notified on 19 April 2016 states:



“Partially upholding the Lawsuit filed on behalf of xxxxx against BANCO BILBAO VIZCAYA ARGENTARIA S.A. I condemn the defendant bank to pay to the plaintiff the amount of xx,xxx Euros, plus the corresponding legal interest from 20 June 2006 until full payment, without imposition of costs”


So BBVA is sentenced to refund the amount of xx,xxx€ plus interest at the legal rate from the date you paid to the developer’s bank account, 20 June 2006, until complete repayment.

The Judge did not impose the costs of the legal proceedings on any party.  Therefore, each party will pay its own costs.

Interesting statements from the Judge in the Sentence were:

“The plaintiff signed a purchase contract dated 5 April 2006 with the promotor, Procobar S.A to buy a property at the Sierra Golf/Lo Escobar development in Sucina, Murcia.  The contract stipulated that the off-plan deposit was to be paid to the account opened at BBVA.  The plaintiff claimed the amount xx,xxx€.  Evidence was provided by BBVA to confirm the amount of xx,xxx€, however there was no record of the remaining amount of xx,xxx€ being paid to the BBVA account.

The defendant bank acknowledged that it financed the off-plan development in which the plaintiff had purchased a property.

The house was not delivered on time as agreed and the contract was terminated judicially, in a separate action, by a resolution dated 2 November 2012.

On 21 December 2015 the Supreme Court has fixed doctrine regarding the responsibility of the bank that receives the quantities delivered by buyers on account of off-plan housing.  It reiterates this doctrine in its Sentence of 9 March 2016.

BBVA is responsible for the amount of xx,xxx€ which appears in the account statements. BBVA cannot be responsible for the remaining amount of xx,xxx€ as the plaintiff has not provided evidence to show this amount being paid to the Procobar account in the defendant bank.

According to Article 394 of the Civil Code, as the Lawsuit has been partially upheld there will be no imposition of costs.  Each party will pay its own costs and any common costs will be halved”

"Cocedores" beach, Murcia, East of Spain

 



Like 2




1 Comments


M11Block said:
06 May 2016 @ 15:19

Well done Mara. Congratulations.

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