Cam Bank/Cleyton GES Final legal decision

Post reply   Start new thread
:: New - Old :: Old - New

Pages: 1 |

Forum home :: Latest threads :: Search forums
The Comments
11 Oct 2012 17:01 by steone Star rating in Santiago de la Riber.... 386 posts Send private message


Dear Clients,

Today is a great day for all those clients who purchased properties from Cleyton Ges SL on the "Las Higuericas" residential complex.

Our firm, FUSTER & ASSOCIATES, has won an important case at the Provincial Court of Murcia against CAJA DE AHORROS DEL MEDITERRANEO (now Banco Sabadell CAM). The ruling orders this financial entity to refund all amounts paid by our client to Cleyton Ges SL on account of the price for the purchase of a property and paid into the special account opened with the CAM but that was never duly guaranteed by the entity.

The Provincial Court of Murcia upheld our appeal and, accepting our legal arguments, stated that all the hypotheses exist for liability to be attributed to Caja de Ahorros del Mediterráneo in accordance with Article 1 of Law 57/1968 following the opening of the special account provided for in said law by the developer and the lack of due guarantee for the refund of all amounts paid by the buyers by way of deposits, plus the corresponding interest.

According to the Court Ruling, the CAM did not duly require the legally established guarantee for the opening of this special account, thus failing to comply with the obligation attributed thereto by the law as guarantor of the existence of said guarantees to return payments made (in order to protect the interests of buyers). The CAM cannot claim not to be responsible for the existence of said guarantee when opening the account because, to the contrary, the CAM must control and verify the same. Therefore and considering that the purpose of the Law is to protect, the liability of Caja de Ahorros del Mediterráneo arising from this breach by opening the special account without providing the pertinent guarantees (bank guarantee or insurance cover) must be considered subsidiary in the event that the developer fails to return the amount claimed.

Furthermore, the Provincial Court o f Murcia concludes that this liability of the banking entity must, in any case, be considered separate from the liability arising from the issue, as appropriate, of the corresponding bank guarantee as Article 1 of Law 57/1968 does not affect property developers exclusively and nor is liability from the banking entity solely enforceable when a banking guarantee is provided.

As we can see, the doctrine established by the Provincial Court of Murcia, in line with other rulings passed by other provincial courts, represents a great step forward in defending the interests of property buyers, whose interests have been negatively affected by non-fulfilment by the developer when delivering the property and the lack of bank guarantees that would enable them to recover amounts paid on account of the price.

Moreover, this ruling is the first passed by a Provincial Court against Cleyton Ges SL and the CAM, with the added advantage of being final and not subject to any furthe r appeal.

 This was taken directly from Fuster & Associates as I have no connection with them

This message was last edited by steone on 11/10/2012.

This message was last edited by steone on 11/10/2012.


Like 0      
11 Oct 2012 17:47 by ChrisBW Star rating. 50 posts Send private message

 Great news! Does this set some sort of precedent?


Like 0      
11 Oct 2012 18:07 by Keith110 Star rating in the UK and I am lead.... 682 posts Send private message

Hi Chris

Yes, it does especially on the Las Higuericas, Finca Parcs development.

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 17 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 17 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!

Kind regards



This message was last edited by Keith110 on 11/10/2012.


LEY 57/1968


Like 0      

Pages: 1 |

Post reply    Start new thread

Previous Threads

fishing licence for Murcia - 4 posts
Advice on getting rid of Villa - 1 posts
Easyjet flights - substantially higher in 2013? - 9 posts
removals - 3 posts
Removals - 1 posts
moving to santa pola - 0 posts
The Spanish Red Cross - 2 posts
Social Security in Spain. Do they leave you to die the road side? - 18 posts
Is it just the Spanish courts or are the UK ones just as bad? - 12 posts
Inheritance tax and subsequent tax liability if I sell and take money back to uk or reinvest in Spain - 6 posts
How do you know you've become a local? - 16 posts
Pet Transport companies in Spain / UK - 3 posts
Checking in with animals at Malaga airport - 0 posts
reliable car mechanic - 1 posts
Costa Del Sol Free Thinkers - 0 posts
Keeping fit in Spain - local gyms - 0 posts
What credibility do Spanish goods have abroad? - 19 posts
Solution for debt problems - 0 posts
Making Wills - 2 posts
are yanks welcome? - 10 posts
Prospective rise in Spanish retirement age, how will it affect UK pensioners in Spain? - 3 posts
walking to la zenia boulavard - 5 posts
Paramount theme park - 7 posts

Number of posts in this thread: 3

DISCLAIMER:  All opinions posted on these message boards are the opinion solely of the poster and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Eye on Spain, its servants or agents.

1 |
Our Weekly Email Digest

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