NEW! Spain Supreme Court clear speaking on Banks liabilities

Legal tip 1358- NEW! Spain Supreme Court clear speaking on Banks liabilities 
28 December 2015 @ 20:19 
 

A recent Court decission dated 21st of December sets " Case Law Doctrine" on liabilities of Banks, receivers of amounts in off- plan deposits

Regardless the account was named "special" or not, always provided there is no General Guarantoor involved ( Bank or Insurance Company), as far as it is reasonable the Bank knew those payments were for an off-plan project, liabilities of provision 1 second paragraph of Law 57/68 apply!

Good news!

María

That looks like another positive ruling for us purchasers waiting for return of our money. Thank you for this recent update Maria.

When will these banks recognise that there is now nowhere to go, carrying on denying their legal responsibility ? 

Surely there is now no more scope for them to delay and appeal further. ? 

Hopimg for a prosperous new year for all waiting in the legal queue . Roll on  2016  !!

Thank you Maria.

Does this recent SC doctrine have any relevance to General Guarantor claimants where their offplan deposits were placed into developer accounts with different receiver Banks to the General Guarantor Bank?

Broph: I do hope Banks will start acknowledging liabilities now. Supreme Court doctrine on every aspect is crystal clear

Ads: This doctrine does not apply to cases where there is a General Guarantoor

Maria, what are the implications of this new Ruling for those of us waiting for Court cases to be heard? Does it mean the Banks can't take it to Supreme Court level? Why does it not apply where there is a General Guarantor? R and G

M11 Block:

Answering below in bold green:

Maria, what are the implications of this new Ruling for those of us waiting for Court cases to be heard? This doctrine applies.

Does it mean the Banks can't take it to Supreme Court level? They should not but they can, Supreme Court will/ will not reject the case.

 Why does it not apply where there is a General Guarantor? Because in those cases liability is of them---the guarantoors--- and not of the banks receiving deposits.

 R and G

Dear Maria,

Are your Barristers bringing to the attention of judges a case for moral authority to be demonstrated in the interim periods in their ongoing rulings, in recognition of increasing case law and SC rulings which are being continually challenged by the Banks in this obstructive manner?

Are Barristers emphasising in their defense of Ley57/68 lawsuits the growing need for moral judgements, such as awarding full interest and costs to act as adequate disincentives against obstructive tactical ploys by the Banks, until such time as Supreme Court doctrines are established and adhered to?

The Banks are running roughshod over the Spanish Justice system and are demonstrating a highly concerning disregard for growing case law and SC rulings with regard to their liabilities according to Ley 57/68 law by their approach to consistently appeal against judicial rulings in favour of claimants.

How can this behaviour possibly be interpreted as honourable intent or in good faith when they demonstrate such obstructive tactical ploys to delay justice in this manner, and in so doing place immense pressure on not only the already overstretched court and judicial systems of Spain, but also on those who now find themselves with increasing costs to defend their INALIENABLE RIGHTS?

It beggars belief.

Ads:

Answering you below in bold green ( same text as your email):

Dear Maria,

Are your Barristers bringing to the attention of judges a case for moral authority to be demonstrated in the interim periods in their ongoing rulings, in recognition of increasing case law and SC rulings which are being continually challenged by the Banks in this obstructive manner?

Our legal system does not provide for that type of case. Of course costs are being always asked as part of the condemn.

Are Barristers emphasising in their defense of Ley57/68 lawsuits the growing need for moral judgements, such asawarding full interest and costs to act as adequate disincentives against obstructive tactical ploys by the Banks, until such time as Supreme Court doctrines are established and adhered to? They are asking for both full legal interest and costs in every lawsuit.

The Banks are running roughshod over the Spanish Justice system and are demonstrating a highly concerning disregard for growing case law and SC rulings with regard to their liabilities according to Ley 57/68 law by their approach to consistently appeal against judicial rulings in favour of claimants. Interests run against them

How can this behaviour possibly be interpreted as honourable intent or in good faith when they demonstrate such obstructive tactical ploys to delay justice in this manner, and in so doing place immense pressure on not only the already overstretched court and judicial systems of Spain, but also on those who now find themselves with increasing costs to defend their INALIENABLE RIGHTS?

It beggars belief.