LEY 57/1968 WON CASE in FIRST INSTANCE COURT AGAINST CAJAMAR CAJA RURAL FOR 9 OF OUR CLIENTS WHO PURCHASED OFF-PLAN PROPERTIES FROM THE DEVELOPER PROMOCIONES EUROHOUSE S.L. AT FORTUNA GOLF RESORT, LOS BALCONES DEL VALLE & APARTAMENTOS TURISTICOS PUEBLO LA

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

Pages: 1 |

Forum home :: Latest threads :: Search forums
The Comments
11 May 2016 09:29 by mariadecastro Star rating in Algeciras (Cadiz). 9345 posts Send private message

Legal Questions? Speak to Maria Direct

LEY 57/1968 WON CASE in FIRST INSTANCE COURT AGAINST CAJAMAR CAJA RURAL FOR 9 OF OUR CLIENTS WHO PURCHASED OFF-PLAN PROPERTIES FROM THE DEVELOPER PROMOCIONES EUROHOUSE S.L. AT FORTUNA GOLF RESORT, LOS BALCONES DEL VALLE & APARTAMENTOS TURISTICOS PUEBLO LA SAL

We were extremely pleased to inform our clients recently that we had won their case against CAJAMAR CAJA RURAL in the Provincial Appeal Court.

The 9 clients paid part of their off-plan deposits to the developer’s account at CAJAMAR CAJA RURAL.  The clients did not receive individual Guarantees for their off-plan deposits from the developer, Promociones Eurohouse S.L. or from CAJAMAR CAJA RURAL, the Bank to which the part of their off-plan deposit subject to this action was paid.


Re: YOUR CASE AGAINST CAJAMAR CAJA RURAL SOCIEDAD COOPERATIVA DE CREDITO
PO: xxxx/2012

Please find attached Sentence number xxx/2016 from the Provincial Appeal Court of Alicante Section 9 based in Elche.

I am very pleased to advise you that the Appeal filed by Cajamar Caja Rural against the First Instance Sentence has been dismissed.  The First Instance Sentence has been confirmed.

7 of the 9 claimants in the group also filed a challenge against the First Instance Sentence in respect of the costs of the First Instance procedure not being imposed on Cajamar Caja Rural.

Unfortunately the costs challenge has been dismissed and the costs relating to that challenge have been imposed on the 7 claimants who made the challenge.

The final paragraph of the First Instance Sentence delivered on 16 April 2015 and notified on 28 April 2015 states:



“I estimate the Lawsuit filed on behalf of 9 CLAIMANTS against the financial institution CAJAMAR CAJA RURAL SOCIEDAD COOPERATIVA DE CREDITO, and must condemn the defendant to the repayment of the amount of xx,xxx€, plus legal interest from the date of payment to the developer’s account in CAJAMAR CAJA RURAL.  All without an express imposition of costs”



The final paragraphs of the Provincial Appeal Court Sentence delivered on 1 April 2016 and notified on 22 April 2016 state:


“We dismiss the Appeal filed by the legal representation of CAJAMAR CAJA RURAL SOCIEDAD COOPERATIVA DE CREDITO against the Sentence dated 16 April 2015, issued by the Judge of the First Instance Court No.3 of Orihuela in Ordinary Procedure xxxx/2012, which is confirmed, with the express imposition of costs of this Appeal on the appellant bank.

We dismiss the challenge by 7 CLAIMANTS against the same Sentence which is confirmed with the express imposition of costs of this challenge on the appellant plaintiffs”



So the Appeal filed by Cajamar Caja Rural has been dismissed and the First Instance Sentence has been confirmed.  Costs of the Appeal are imposed on Cajamar Caja Rural.

The challenge made by the 7 group members against the non-imposition of costs of the First Instance on the Bank has also been dismissed.  Costs of the challenge have been imposed on the 7 group members.

So the First Instance Sentence is confirmed in all aspects.

According to the First Instance Sentence, now confirmed, CAJAMAR CAJA RURAL SCC is liable to refund the total amount of xx,xxx€ plus legal interest from the date each amount was paid to the Promociones Eurohouse account at CAJAMAR CAJA RURAL until full payment to the Court. 

Costs of the First Instance procedure are not imposed on any one party.  Therefore each party will bear its own legal costs of the First Instance and any common costs will be halved.

In the Sentence the Magistrates state:

“Cajamar Caja Rural appealed claiming that the case law used to support the First Instance Sentence does not correspond to the factual circumstances of this case.  It says that for the 9 claimants in this case all purchase contracts stated that the off-plan deposits should be paid to BBVA.  In fact, of the amounts paid only around 10% was actually deposited into the developers account in Cajamar Caja Rural.  All those amounts were deposited on behalf of the buyers by the intermediary Ole Mediterráneo S.L.  The account opened by the constructor Eurohouse was a normal account, without control of the financial entity, not for the receipt of off-plan funds and with no obligations imposed by LEY 57/1968.  Cajamar Caja Rural states that Eurohouse did not have a Special Account opened in its branches.  Therefore, it did not know the source of the income into the Eurohouse account.

The plaintiffs also challenged the non-imposition of costs of the First Instance on the Bank, stating that they believed there are no serious questions of law on the matter of the Bank’s liability according to LEY 57/1968.

The question at issue regarding the Appeal filed by Cajamar Caja Rural focuses on the existence of an obligation of the defendant bank to ensure that the amounts paid by buyers into an account opened by the builder should be deposited in a special account that would ensure their return to the buyers in case of default by the developer.

This Court finds no reason to change the criterion of the Sentence of the First Instance Court.

Given the conflicting jurisprudence regarding LEY 57/1968, with regards to the Special Account, we must maintain the view of the First Instance Court which considers the doubts generated by the Law does not lead to imposition of costs of the First Instance on the defendant bank”



Cajamar Caja Rural SCC has 20 working days from the date of notification of the Sentence, which was 22 April 2016, 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.

If the defendant fails to comply with the sentence then we will enforce the sentence against it.



_______________________

Maria L. de Castro, JD, MA

Lawyer

Director www.costaluzlawyers.es

El blog de Maria



Like 0      

Pages: 1 |

Post reply    Start new thread


Previous Threads

Discount Codes for DFS in San Javier - 0 posts
Register car in spain confused - 4 posts
Register car in spain - 0 posts
Send mobile top up - 0 posts
Moving to spain from the UK- - 6 posts
Kitchen Install Problems - 4 posts
EU Welfare Benefits - 5 posts
Trade a scrap car in for a new one - 3 posts
Fireplace Surrounds & Fires - 2 posts
Legal tip 1384. FREE revision of mortgage deeds - 0 posts
Any ideas for property in Villamartin area, Orihuela Costa. - 7 posts
entire Apartment contents for Sale Marbella excellent furniture and condition - 1 posts
Camposol Sector C - 13 posts
Good-cond CAR WANTED - 120 CV upwards. - 0 posts
GE Money have sold their mortgage book to OTAGAZ Gestion Hipotecaria - 51 posts
winter let around Malaga near coast. - 4 posts
Attention of EOS team re spam messages - 5 posts
hihic card - 1 posts
power of attorney - 9 posts
long term rentals - 8 posts
Legal tip 1383.A SPANISH BANK REPOSSESSING YOUR SPANISH HOME?  DO NOT PANIC - 0 posts
Proof of uk residency required...bank says info required from British embassy? - 20 posts
A UK with a euro account - 3 posts
Communion and confirmations - 0 posts
CCTV IN A Community - 30 posts

Number of posts in this thread: 1

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
Name:  
Email:
   


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