IT ALL STARTED AT EYEONSPAIN! CostaLuz-Decastro VICTORY AT THE SUPREME COURT FOR OFF PLAN BUYERS

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

Pages: 1 | 2 | Next |

Forum home :: Latest threads :: Search forums
The Comments
23 May 2016 19:08 by mariadecastro Star rating in Algeciras (Cadiz). 9344 posts Send private message

Legal Questions? Speak to Maria Direct

Legal tip 1389. COSTALUZ LAWYERS VICTORY AT THE SUPREME COURT FOR OFF PLAN BUYERS 
23 May 2016 @ 19:07 
 

 
SUBJECT:      SPANISH OFF-PLAN PROPERTY
                    NEW SUPREME COURT SENTENCE
                    SPANISH LAW - LEY 57/1968



NEW SUPREME COURT SENTENCE WON BY COSTALUZ LAWYERS/DECASTRO

SPANISH OFF-PLAN PROPERTY PURCHASES - THE SUPREME COURT FIXES JURISPRUDENCE REGARDING BANKS LIABILITIES ACCORDING TO SPANISH LAW - LEY 57/1968
 

IN THE NEW SENTENCE THE SUPREME COURT STATES THAT CAJA CANARIAS (now BANKIA) OBSTINATELY DENIED REALITY REGARDING THE OFF-PLAN PAYMENTS MADE BY OUR CLIENTS

CAJA CANARIAS (now BANKIA) SENTENCED BY THE SUPREME COURT TO REFUND ALL OFF-PLAN AMOUNTS PAID BY OUR CLIENTS PLUS INTEREST & COSTS

OUR CLIENTS PURCHASED TWO OFF-PLAN PROPERTIES FROM THE DEVELOPER CONSTRUCCIONES LUAYRA S.L. AT THE ‘EL SOBRAO’ DEVELOPMENT IN TRIQUIVIJATE, FUERTEVENTURA

OFF-PLAN PURCHASE CONTRACT SIGNED IN 2006.  THE CASE WAS LOST IN THE FIRST INSTANCE COURT OF LAS PALMAS IN 2011 & IN THE PROVINCIAL APPEAL COURT OF LAS PALMAS IN 2013.  CASE NOW WON IN THE SUPREME COURT IN 2016.




BACKGROUND

Our clients paid their off-plan deposit to the developer’s account at CAJA CANARIAS (now BANKIA) in 2007.  The clients did not receive an individual Guarantee for their off-plan deposit from the developer, Construcciones Luayra S.L. or from CAJA CANARIAS, the Bank that received the off-plan deposit and also issued a construction mortgage loan to the developer.

The purchase contracts for the properties at the El Sobrao off-plan development in Fuerteventura were signed in November 2006 and the deposit was paid in February 2007 by bank transfer to the developer’s account, designated in the contracts, at Caja Canarias.

The developer failed to construct the properties according to the timescales allowed in the purchase contract.

In 2009 we filed a Lawsuit on behalf of our clients, against the developer for breach of contract.  In 2010 the First Instance Court of Puerto del Rosario issued a Sentence cancelling the purchase contracts and condemning the developer to return the off-plan deposit plus interest from the date of the court summons.  We enforced the Sentence, however due to its financial situation the developer did not pay.

In April 2011 we then filed a Lawsuit on behalf of our clients, against the developer’s Bank – Caja Canarias – asking for conviction of the bank according to its liability under Article 1.2 of LEY 57/1968.  The Bank opposed the Lawsuit on the grounds that it had not opened a Special Account for the developer, had not issued the individual guarantee to the buyers and just because it had given a mortgage loan to the developer did not make it liable for the off-plan deposits paid by the buyers.

In September 2011 the First Instance Court of Las Palmas dismissed the Lawsuit and absolved the Bank of all responsibility.  Costs were imposed on our client.  We filed an appeal and in September 2013 the Provincial Appeal Court of Las Palmas dismissed the Appeal, confirmed the First Instance Sentence and imposed costs of the appeal on our client.

In October 2013 we drafted and filed a Cassation Appeal to the Supreme Court which was accepted into procedure in October 2014. 

The Supreme Court has now upheld our Cassation Appeal, revoked the First Instance & Provincial Appeal Court sentences and condemned BANKIA to refund the off-plan deposit plus interest at the legal rate from the date in 2007 when the off-plan payments were paid to the developer’s account.  Costs of the First Instance Procedure are now imposed on the Bank. 

The Supreme Court has now fixed jurisprudential doctrine regarding Banks liabilities and obligations according to LEY 57/1968 as follows:

‘In house sales governed by Law 57/1968 credit institutions (banks) that receive income from buyers in the promotor’s account without requiring the opening of a special account and the corresponding guarantee or warranty, shall be liable to the buyer for the total amounts paid by buyers and deposited in the account or accounts the developer has opened in that entity’

In relation to the conduct of the Bank, the Supreme Court Sentence states:

The responsibility to the buyers for control over the accounts of the promoter legally corresponds to the credit institution where the promoter has one or multiple accounts.

In this case, the defendant obstinately denied the reality of the off-plan payments made by the buyers, who were not the only ones to pay off-plan amounts to the said account, until that reality was incontestably established.  Its legal duty to control the buyer’s funds was hardly debatable as it was precisely the entity that had granted the mortgage loan to the developer for the construction’

This is a significant achievement for our clients and for the Costaluz Lawyers/DeCastro legal teams.  We began writing and posting about Banks liabilities according to LEY 57/1968 in 2009 when there was very little case law to support our arguments.  In the period 2009 to 2012, not only did we have virtually no support for our legal arguments but we were at times criticised in the public domain by other Lawyers.

Now the Supreme Court has fixed doctrine regarding developer’s Banks liabilities according to LEY 57/1968 using virtually the same words that we have written repeatedly during the past 7 years.  The rest as they say is history and in the last 4 years we have won well over 150 cases for our clients against developer’s banks including the landmark Finca Parcs Action Group case against CAM Bank (Sabadell) in June 2012.

KEITH RULE, the Erin Brockovich of Spanish Off-Plan Property

 

• STOPPING THE BANKS.  The Englishman has helped to stop forever the financial voracity that lead to speculation, illegalities and the real estate bubble in the buying and selling of off-plan property in Spain

 

• CREATED JURISPRUDENCE & LAW REFORM.  He formed the FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP in 2008 and initiated a legal action that created jurisprudence in the Supreme Court and led to the modification of the law governing the matter.

 

• SPAIN IS NOW THE SAFEST EUROPEAN COUNTRY FOR OFF-PLAN PROPERTY PURCHASES.   He was a small business owner from Britain, who in 2008 saw what the Spanish Supreme Court has now in 2016 defined as jurisprudence.  He also led protests and petitions that may have contributed to the reform of the law that now makes Spain the world's safest country for off-plan property purchases.

 

• HEALTH OF THE OFF-PLAN REAL ESTATE MARKET.  Clarity and determination resulted in the Banks having to comply with legal obligations & responsibilities to buyers, which is good for the balance and health of the housing market.

 

• HIRED BY LAW FIRM.  His efforts resulted in him winning his landmark case against BANCO CAM (now Sabadell) for the Finca Parcs Action Group in 2012 and now being employed as a cornerstone of the legal team that he first instructed to fight his own case in 2009.

 

Erin Brockovich in Spain
 

Keith Rule now works helping hundreds of people who, like him, invested in Spanish off-plan property during the last real estate financial boom and saw failed promotions lead to the liquidation of property developers to whom they had paid their life savings.

In 2008, when he faced his own problem, it was clear to him that he had to take legal action against the developer’s bank that had accepted his off-plan deposit money and not just against the developer.
 


"In 2008 I remember initially saying to him that if you do not have a Bank Guarantee then you could not take legal action against the Bank," says Maria de Castro, director of the Costaluz Lawyers team.

Keith insisted and raised an impressive amount of evidence obtained with a degree of thoroughness worthy of the best law firms.
 

"Oh yes, we met Keith Rule personally in a hotel in Tamworth in 2010 where we were staying for some days working with another group of clients in a different case.  He arrived at the hotel with his family sized suitcase filled to the top with files.  We were listening for hours.  At least we had plenty of coffee!!" explain the Costaluz Lawyers team members with whom Keith now works.
 

The evidence and arguments demonstrated by Keith Rule in his 600 page dossier of evidence back in March 2010 won the hearts and minds of our legal team as it covered all angles and lit the spark for the fight against the banks that has culminated with the Supreme Court Sentence we recently won for another client.

He had interest and passion for serious study to find the legal arguments and jurisprudence for the matter that he saw clearly.
 

Since then, in all his visits to Algeciras, where our offices are located, Keith is accompanied by the same large suitcase, now full of other client’s documents.  As a joke, his colleagues usually say, "Keith and his suitcase," "The Terror of the banks", "English Iron Man"....
 

Change in Law and Jurisprudence


The jurisprudence that existed when Keith began his own fight back in 2008 was very low and certainly there was nothing from the Supreme Court.  

Since we won Keith’s Finca Parcs Action Group case in the summer of 2012, more and more Sentences from the Provincial Appeal Courts have emerged relating to the responsibilities of banks receiving money from purchasers of off-plan properties.  In December 2015 the initial arguments we first discussed and wrote about with Keith some 5 or 6 years ago were defined as jurisprudential doctrine by the Supreme Court.



On 9 March 2016, LEY 57/1968 jurisprudence became definitive following a 2nd Supreme Court ruling and several days later our own team of Costaluz Lawyers, De Castro & Keith Rule won a judgment the Supreme Court which applied this doctrine for the first time.

 

Along with the creation of this well orientated and consumer protective jurisprudence for off-plan property buyers, our work over the past 8 years has also led to the reform of the law itself, LEY 57/68, for clarity and protection of the consumer.

 

Spain: now the safest country in the world for buying and selling off-plan properties.
 

Keith’s colleagues believe that all the cases being won against Banks involve, "balance and security for the off-plan property market in Spain, good role of the Spanish Courts and portray the positive image of the Spanish legal and judicial system to international eyes".  All these are effects of the legal action that we now call the ‘Keith Rule Action’.
 

Before gaining a legal victory against CAM Bank for his 47 strong Finca Parcs Action Group in 2012, Keith had spent many years campaigning for off-plan buyers rights according the Spanish Law, LEY 57/1968.  His efforts began in 2008 with protests against CAM Bank which resulted in a 100 page complaint file being submitted to the bank’s head office in 2009.

In 2010 he launched the Finca Parcs Action Group website (www.fincaparcsactiongroup.com) and a Petition to the Spanish Government and Bank of Spain by way of his website Bank Guarantees in Spain (www.bankguaranteesinspain.com).  Keith also sent written complaints to the Valencian Savings Ombudsman and to the Bank of Spain.

In February 2011, Keith together with Jaime de Castro from the Costaluz Lawyers/DeCastro legal team completed the Finca Parcs Action Group Lawsuit and submitted it to the Court.  Later that year Keith was invited as part of a small delegation to meet with David Lidington MP (Minister for Europe) at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London to discuss the Finca Parcs issue and the wider Bank Guarantees situation for off-plan property buyers in Spain.

Meetings and protests at the Spanish Embassy in London also took place, including a meeting with the then Spanish Housing Minister, Beatriz Corredor.

Costaluz Lawyers & Keith’s Finca Parcs Action Group won their case in the First Instance Court in 2012 and the Bank lost its Appeal in 2013.  The Finca Parcs Sentence then became Case Law for other similar cases.

Over the years there has been much media interest in Keith’s work including numerous articles in the British & Spanish media, TV interviews & BBC Radio Interviews.

But the fight goes on…………  Currently, Costaluz Lawyers, the Law Firm for whom Keith has worked since 2013 is still acting for many buyers who, like him, paid off-plan deposits to developer’s bank accounts without receiving the corresponding guarantees.  There are many cases still in court and the Law Firm are continuing to gain new clients.  All this underlines the impact Keith's work has contributed to the Spanish legal system.

 

Milestones achieved over the years regarding LEY 57/1968:
 

- Banks must cover all the amounts paid, not only those covered by an Individual Guarantee
 

- The Guarantees do not expire until the First Occupation Licence is issued


- The existence of a line of guarantees or contract of insurance guarantee between the Bank and the promoter and proof of payments made by the purchaser as provided in the contract, gives rights against guarantors
 

- Despite having acceded to the agreement of bankruptcy of the developer, the rights against the guarantor or the receiving bank are not extinguished
 

- Even if the bank account is not named by the Bank as a ‘Special Account’ it will be treated as ‘Special’ according to the Law due to the source and destination of the funds deposited therein
 

- The obligation to secure the off-plan deposits is a fundamental requirement of the banks derived from the Law
 

- Actions against a developer’s bank expire after 15 years

- Interest is payable from the delivery of amounts and not from the filing of the Lawsuit


   Finca Parcs Action Group Leader, Keith Rule says:

“It was hugely significant when we beat CAM Bank in the first Finca Parcs Action Group Lawsuit in 2012 and even more so when the First Instance Sentence was then confirmed by the Provincial Appeal Court in April 2013.

We have now recently won second case for another group of Finca Parcs buyers against CAM Bank.

In 2008 & 2009 when I formed the Finca Parcs Action Group I was of the opinion that developer’s banks had liabilities and obligations according to Spanish Law, LEY 57/1968, regarding off-plan deposit funds, but one of my biggest hurdles back then was to find a Lawyer who also shared my view. 

Fortunately I found Costaluz Lawyers, who since winning the first Finca Parcs case have now won similar cases against developer’s banks for many other clients on failed off-plan property projects all over Spain.  Furthermore the Supreme Court has recently confirmed many important aspects regarding banks liabilities according to LEY 57/1968 and this has now been fixed as jurisprudence with the case recently won in the Supreme Court by Costaluz Lawyers”


   María de Castro, Director of Costaluz Lawyers comments:

“These victories against banks in favour of consumers are good for a balanced economy and for rebuilding trust in the Spanish legal and judicial system.  Keith’s efforts inspired us all and our recently won case in the Supreme Court is testament to the many years of hard work by the whole team.  He really is like a dog with a bone – he just never gives up”



  Jaime de Castro, Director - De Castro Gabinete Jurídico comments:

“Spain is unique among European countries in having an effective Law to safeguard buyer’s off-plan deposits.  The Spanish Courts have been applying this Law strictly and categorically and I am confident this will continue”

http://www.costaluzlawyers.es/blog/

https://www.facebook.com/costaluzlawyers/

 

 


 


This message was last edited by mariadecastro on 23/05/2016.

_______________________

Maria L. de Castro, JD, MA

Lawyer

Director www.costaluzlawyers.es

El blog de Maria



Like 1      
24 May 2016 17:47 by briando55 Star rating in Yorkshire. 2001 posts Send private message

Hi Maria,

Well done on your recent cases and thanks to Keith Rule of course.

I just noticed your blog is reporting on tthe case with SGR and the deposit return after the client had decided to go through the administration and accept a 65% return on the deposit through that court.

My lawyer at the time of the administration should be aware of the option of Ley 57/68 (and was) but said that my best chance of getting a return on my deposit was to go through the 65% option.  

I was widely quoted at the time that I thought this administration was going to result in the company ceasing trading anyway and the delay was not wise because the builder was never going to survive (in my opinion).

So I now have to reflect on the advice and performance of my original lawyer who took a considerable fee to represent us, and that lawyer all the time was aware of the ley 57/68, not least because it was his profession to know about it.

The original advice from my lawyer was incorrect, it has delayed our progress with a return of our deposit and it has jepordised our full return of depost and interest and costs.

What do we do now about our experience with that lawyer now we have paid the further fees for representation and the court appears to be taking some money away from the sentence because of this original advice.



_______________________

Best wishes, Brian

 




Like 0      
24 May 2016 18:07 by josey96 Star rating. 12 posts Send private message

Hi Maria

This is all great news and on the back of a lot of hard work by you and your team and the massive efforts of Keith.  

Does this ruling help Buyers where properties were eventually built and granted a habitation certificate, but where buyers did not got any bank guarantees for the stage payments, and the properties were built longer than what it stated in the contracts and where many of the facilties were not built/provided as per the original sales and site plans.  

Polaris World properties would be a good example of this and where they simply kept the deposits of many innocent buyers.   





Like 0      
25 May 2016 13:46 by joyjo Star rating. 120 posts Send private message

We too had a lawyer who was quite happy for us to wait and see what was left after the bankruptcy we also opted for the 65%.

Now happily we are with GM Legal and are now awaiting the outcome of our court case. Our previous lawyer also charged us over 2000 euros and did nothing.

Cheers Joyjo





Like 0      
25 May 2016 14:01 by briando55 Star rating in Yorkshire. 2001 posts Send private message

Joyjo,  are you concerned that your previous lawyers advice and being unaware of how to apply a law in place at the time, will cost you anything in the courts?

Also if you have success, what about the previous lawyers bad advice and the costs they charged you, and then them doing the job incorrectly?? 



_______________________

Best wishes, Brian

 




Like 0      
25 May 2016 16:22 by joyjo Star rating. 120 posts Send private message

Hi Brian

Don't think previous lawyers misadvice will cost us anything during this process. The 65%doesn't apply anymore.

What he cost us is in the past now, if we got something back of his costs it would be a bonus but don't think its likely to happen.

Just seeing an end to this case will be enough.

Joyjo





Like 0      
25 May 2016 16:39 by joyjo Star rating. 120 posts Send private message

Just had a message from GM Legal saying the Alicante court has agreed we should get our deposit back plus interest and costs.  Of course, the bank have the usual 20 days to appeal against the interest and costs but the lawyer is going for it.

Yippee!!!!

Joyjo





Like 0      
26 May 2016 00:41 by briando55 Star rating in Yorkshire. 2001 posts Send private message

Wow excellent.   Result



_______________________

Best wishes, Brian

 




Like 0      
26 May 2016 11:50 by morerosado Star rating in Guardamar del Segura.... 6927 posts Send private message

morerosado´s avatar

The result will be when you've received the money into your bank account but it's VERY good news ...well achieved Maria .. & I hope all now is nearing its end for you & others affected by such matters. 

 


This message was last edited by morerosado on 26/05/2016.

_______________________

PLEASE SUPPORT  http://www.galgosdelsol.org/ 

 

 

 

 

 

 




Like 0      
26 May 2016 12:28 by mariadecastro Star rating in Algeciras (Cadiz). 9344 posts Send private message

Legal Questions? Speak to Maria Direct

Morerosado:

Good to see you here! Long time, is not?

Clients are all receiving their  refunds from Banks. No worries on this.

Cheers

María



_______________________

Maria L. de Castro, JD, MA

Lawyer

Director www.costaluzlawyers.es

El blog de Maria



Like 0      
27 May 2016 16:14 by ads Star rating. 4025 posts Send private message

Joyjo many congratulations.

Is it only the interest and costs that can be appealed by the Bank, in other words are you guaranteed return of your deposit?





Like 0      
27 May 2016 19:05 by joyjo Star rating. 120 posts Send private message

I am assuming it is only the interest and costs they can appeal. So we hope the appeal fails.

Joyjo





Like 1      
28 May 2016 08:58 by mariadecastro Star rating in Algeciras (Cadiz). 9344 posts Send private message

Legal Questions? Speak to Maria Direct

Legal tip 1389. COSTALUZ LAWYERS VICTORY AT THE SUPREME COURT FOR OFF PLAN BUYERS 
23 May 2016 @ 19:07 
 

 
SUBJECT:      SPANISH OFF-PLAN PROPERTY
                    NEW SUPREME COURT SENTENCE
                    SPANISH LAW - LEY 57/1968



NEW SUPREME COURT SENTENCE WON BY COSTALUZ LAWYERS/DECASTRO

SPANISH OFF-PLAN PROPERTY PURCHASES - THE SUPREME COURT FIXES JURISPRUDENCE REGARDING BANKS LIABILITIES ACCORDING TO SPANISH LAW - LEY 57/1968
 

IN THE NEW SENTENCE THE SUPREME COURT STATES THAT CAJA CANARIAS (now BANKIA) OBSTINATELY DENIED REALITY REGARDING THE OFF-PLAN PAYMENTS MADE BY OUR CLIENTS

CAJA CANARIAS (now BANKIA) SENTENCED BY THE SUPREME COURT TO REFUND ALL OFF-PLAN AMOUNTS PAID BY OUR CLIENTS PLUS INTEREST & COSTS

OUR CLIENTS PURCHASED TWO OFF-PLAN PROPERTIES FROM THE DEVELOPER CONSTRUCCIONES LUAYRA S.L. AT THE ‘EL SOBRAO’ DEVELOPMENT IN TRIQUIVIJATE, FUERTEVENTURA

OFF-PLAN PURCHASE CONTRACT SIGNED IN 2006.  THE CASE WAS LOST IN THE FIRST INSTANCE COURT OF LAS PALMAS IN 2011 & IN THE PROVINCIAL APPEAL COURT OF LAS PALMAS IN 2013.  CASE NOW WON IN THE SUPREME COURT IN 2016.




BACKGROUND

Our clients paid their off-plan deposit to the developer’s account at CAJA CANARIAS (now BANKIA) in 2007.  The clients did not receive an individual Guarantee for their off-plan deposit from the developer, Construcciones Luayra S.L. or from CAJA CANARIAS, the Bank that received the off-plan deposit and also issued a construction mortgage loan to the developer.

The purchase contracts for the properties at the El Sobrao off-plan development in Fuerteventura were signed in November 2006 and the deposit was paid in February 2007 by bank transfer to the developer’s account, designated in the contracts, at Caja Canarias.

The developer failed to construct the properties according to the timescales allowed in the purchase contract.

In 2009 we filed a Lawsuit on behalf of our clients, against the developer for breach of contract.  In 2010 the First Instance Court of Puerto del Rosario issued a Sentence cancelling the purchase contracts and condemning the developer to return the off-plan deposit plus interest from the date of the court summons.  We enforced the Sentence, however due to its financial situation the developer did not pay.

In April 2011 we then filed a Lawsuit on behalf of our clients, against the developer’s Bank – Caja Canarias – asking for conviction of the bank according to its liability under Article 1.2 of LEY 57/1968.  The Bank opposed the Lawsuit on the grounds that it had not opened a Special Account for the developer, had not issued the individual guarantee to the buyers and just because it had given a mortgage loan to the developer did not make it liable for the off-plan deposits paid by the buyers.

In September 2011 the First Instance Court of Las Palmas dismissed the Lawsuit and absolved the Bank of all responsibility.  Costs were imposed on our client.  We filed an appeal and in September 2013 the Provincial Appeal Court of Las Palmas dismissed the Appeal, confirmed the First Instance Sentence and imposed costs of the appeal on our client.

In October 2013 we drafted and filed a Cassation Appeal to the Supreme Court which was accepted into procedure in October 2014. 

The Supreme Court has now upheld our Cassation Appeal, revoked the First Instance & Provincial Appeal Court sentences and condemned BANKIA to refund the off-plan deposit plus interest at the legal rate from the date in 2007 when the off-plan payments were paid to the developer’s account.  Costs of the First Instance Procedure are now imposed on the Bank. 

The Supreme Court has now fixed jurisprudential doctrine regarding Banks liabilities and obligations according to LEY 57/1968 as follows:

‘In house sales governed by Law 57/1968 credit institutions (banks) that receive income from buyers in the promotor’s account without requiring the opening of a special account and the corresponding guarantee or warranty, shall be liable to the buyer for the total amounts paid by buyers and deposited in the account or accounts the developer has opened in that entity’

In relation to the conduct of the Bank, the Supreme Court Sentence states:

The responsibility to the buyers for control over the accounts of the promoter legally corresponds to the credit institution where the promoter has one or multiple accounts.

In this case, the defendant obstinately denied the reality of the off-plan payments made by the buyers, who were not the only ones to pay off-plan amounts to the said account, until that reality was incontestably established.  Its legal duty to control the buyer’s funds was hardly debatable as it was precisely the entity that had granted the mortgage loan to the developer for the construction’

This is a significant achievement for our clients and for the Costaluz Lawyers/DeCastro legal teams.  We began writing and posting about Banks liabilities according to LEY 57/1968 in 2009 when there was very little case law to support our arguments.  In the period 2009 to 2012, not only did we have virtually no support for our legal arguments but we were at times criticised in the public domain by other Lawyers.

Now the Supreme Court has fixed doctrine regarding developer’s Banks liabilities according to LEY 57/1968 using virtually the same words that we have written repeatedly during the past 7 years.  The rest as they say is history and in the last 4 years we have won well over 150 cases for our clients against developer’s banks including the landmark Finca Parcs Action Group case against CAM Bank (Sabadell) in June 2012.

KEITH RULE, the Erin Brockovich of Spanish Off-Plan Property

 

• STOPPING THE BANKS.  The Englishman has helped to stop forever the financial voracity that lead to speculation, illegalities and the real estate bubble in the buying and selling of off-plan property in Spain

 

• CREATED JURISPRUDENCE & LAW REFORM.  He formed the FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP in 2008 and initiated a legal action that created jurisprudence in the Supreme Court and led to the modification of the law governing the matter.

 

• SPAIN IS NOW THE SAFEST EUROPEAN COUNTRY FOR OFF-PLAN PROPERTY PURCHASES.   He was a small business owner from Britain, who in 2008 saw what the Spanish Supreme Court has now in 2016 defined as jurisprudence.  He also led protests and petitions that may have contributed to the reform of the law that now makes Spain the world's safest country for off-plan property purchases.

 

• HEALTH OF THE OFF-PLAN REAL ESTATE MARKET.  Clarity and determination resulted in the Banks having to comply with legal obligations & responsibilities to buyers, which is good for the balance and health of the housing market.

 

• HIRED BY LAW FIRM.  His efforts resulted in him winning his landmark case against BANCO CAM (now Sabadell) for the Finca Parcs Action Group in 2012 and now being employed as a cornerstone of the legal team that he first instructed to fight his own case in 2009.

 

Erin Brockovich in Spain
 

Keith Rule now works helping hundreds of people who, like him, invested in Spanish off-plan property during the last real estate financial boom and saw failed promotions lead to the liquidation of property developers to whom they had paid their life savings.

In 2008, when he faced his own problem, it was clear to him that he had to take legal action against the developer’s bank that had accepted his off-plan deposit money and not just against the developer.
 


"In 2008 I remember initially saying to him that if you do not have a Bank Guarantee then you could not take legal action against the Bank," says Maria de Castro, director of the Costaluz Lawyers team.

Keith insisted and raised an impressive amount of evidence obtained with a degree of thoroughness worthy of the best law firms.
 

"Oh yes, we met Keith Rule personally in a hotel in Tamworth in 2010 where we were staying for some days working with another group of clients in a different case.  He arrived at the hotel with his family sized suitcase filled to the top with files.  We were listening for hours.  At least we had plenty of coffee!!" explain the Costaluz Lawyers team members with whom Keith now works.
 

The evidence and arguments demonstrated by Keith Rule in his 600 page dossier of evidence back in March 2010 won the hearts and minds of our legal team as it covered all angles and lit the spark for the fight against the banks that has culminated with the Supreme Court Sentence we recently won for another client.

He had interest and passion for serious study to find the legal arguments and jurisprudence for the matter that he saw clearly.
 

Since then, in all his visits to Algeciras, where our offices are located, Keith is accompanied by the same large suitcase, now full of other client’s documents.  As a joke, his colleagues usually say, "Keith and his suitcase," "The Terror of the banks", "English Iron Man"....
 

Change in Law and Jurisprudence


The jurisprudence that existed when Keith began his own fight back in 2008 was very low and certainly there was nothing from the Supreme Court.  

Since we won Keith’s Finca Parcs Action Group case in the summer of 2012, more and more Sentences from the Provincial Appeal Courts have emerged relating to the responsibilities of banks receiving money from purchasers of off-plan properties.  In December 2015 the initial arguments we first discussed and wrote about with Keith some 5 or 6 years ago were defined as jurisprudential doctrine by the Supreme Court.



On 9 March 2016, LEY 57/1968 jurisprudence became definitive following a 2nd Supreme Court ruling and several days later our own team of Costaluz Lawyers, De Castro & Keith Rule won a judgment the Supreme Court which applied this doctrine for the first time.

 

Along with the creation of this well orientated and consumer protective jurisprudence for off-plan property buyers, our work over the past 8 years has also led to the reform of the law itself, LEY 57/68, for clarity and protection of the consumer.

 

Spain: now the safest country in the world for buying and selling off-plan properties.
 

Keith’s colleagues believe that all the cases being won against Banks involve, "balance and security for the off-plan property market in Spain, good role of the Spanish Courts and portray the positive image of the Spanish legal and judicial system to international eyes".  All these are effects of the legal action that we now call the ‘Keith Rule Action’.
 

Before gaining a legal victory against CAM Bank for his 47 strong Finca Parcs Action Group in 2012, Keith had spent many years campaigning for off-plan buyers rights according the Spanish Law, LEY 57/1968.  His efforts began in 2008 with protests against CAM Bank which resulted in a 100 page complaint file being submitted to the bank’s head office in 2009.

In 2010 he launched the Finca Parcs Action Group website (www.fincaparcsactiongroup.com) and a Petition to the Spanish Government and Bank of Spain by way of his website Bank Guarantees in Spain (www.bankguaranteesinspain.com).  Keith also sent written complaints to the Valencian Savings Ombudsman and to the Bank of Spain.

In February 2011, Keith together with Jaime de Castro from the Costaluz Lawyers/DeCastro legal team completed the Finca Parcs Action Group Lawsuit and submitted it to the Court.  Later that year Keith was invited as part of a small delegation to meet with David Lidington MP (Minister for Europe) at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London to discuss the Finca Parcs issue and the wider Bank Guarantees situation for off-plan property buyers in Spain.

Meetings and protests at the Spanish Embassy in London also took place, including a meeting with the then Spanish Housing Minister, Beatriz Corredor.

Costaluz Lawyers & Keith’s Finca Parcs Action Group won their case in the First Instance Court in 2012 and the Bank lost its Appeal in 2013.  The Finca Parcs Sentence then became Case Law for other similar cases.

Over the years there has been much media interest in Keith’s work including numerous articles in the British & Spanish media, TV interviews & BBC Radio Interviews.

But the fight goes on…………  Currently, Costaluz Lawyers, the Law Firm for whom Keith has worked since 2013 is still acting for many buyers who, like him, paid off-plan deposits to developer’s bank accounts without receiving the corresponding guarantees.  There are many cases still in court and the Law Firm are continuing to gain new clients.  All this underlines the impact Keith's work has contributed to the Spanish legal system.

 

Milestones achieved over the years regarding LEY 57/1968:
 

- Banks must cover all the amounts paid, not only those covered by an Individual Guarantee
 

- The Guarantees do not expire until the First Occupation Licence is issued


- The existence of a line of guarantees or contract of insurance guarantee between the Bank and the promoter and proof of payments made by the purchaser as provided in the contract, gives rights against guarantors
 

- Despite having acceded to the agreement of bankruptcy of the developer, the rights against the guarantor or the receiving bank are not extinguished
 

- Even if the bank account is not named by the Bank as a ‘Special Account’ it will be treated as ‘Special’ according to the Law due to the source and destination of the funds deposited therein
 

- The obligation to secure the off-plan deposits is a fundamental requirement of the banks derived from the Law
 

- Actions against a developer’s bank expire after 15 years

- Interest is payable from the delivery of amounts and not from the filing of the Lawsuit


   Finca Parcs Action Group Leader, Keith Rule says:

“It was hugely significant when we beat CAM Bank in the first Finca Parcs Action Group Lawsuit in 2012 and even more so when the First Instance Sentence was then confirmed by the Provincial Appeal Court in April 2013.

We have now recently won second case for another group of Finca Parcs buyers against CAM Bank.

In 2008 & 2009 when I formed the Finca Parcs Action Group I was of the opinion that developer’s banks had liabilities and obligations according to Spanish Law, LEY 57/1968, regarding off-plan deposit funds, but one of my biggest hurdles back then was to find a Lawyer who also shared my view. 

Fortunately I found Costaluz Lawyers, who since winning the first Finca Parcs case have now won similar cases against developer’s banks for many other clients on failed off-plan property projects all over Spain.  Furthermore the Supreme Court has recently confirmed many important aspects regarding banks liabilities according to LEY 57/1968 and this has now been fixed as jurisprudence with the case recently won in the Supreme Court by Costaluz Lawyers”


   María de Castro, Director of Costaluz Lawyers comments:

“These victories against banks in favour of consumers are good for a balanced economy and for rebuilding trust in the Spanish legal and judicial system.  Keith’s efforts inspired us all and our recently won case in the Supreme Court is testament to the many years of hard work by the whole team.  He really is like a dog with a bone – he just never gives up”

 Jaime de Castro, Director - De Castro Gabinete Jurídico comments:

“Spain is unique among European countries in having an effective Law to safeguard buyer’s off-plan deposits.  The Spanish Courts have been applying this Law strictly and categorically and I am confident this will continue”

http://www.costaluzlawyers.es/blog/

https://www.facebook.com/costaluzlawyers/

_______________________

Maria L. de Castro, JD, MA

Lawyer

Director www.costaluzlawyers.es



_______________________

Maria L. de Castro, JD, MA

Lawyer

Director www.costaluzlawyers.es

El blog de Maria



Like 0      
28 May 2016 11:31 by ads Star rating. 4025 posts Send private message

Fantastic achievement Maria and all at Costaluz and thank you sincerely Keith for your dogged determination and support to gain justice for so many after all these years.

Still much to do in terms of Bank appeals however, so the educative process continues, and for that yet more thanks for your patience and support to assist in comprehending the complexities and demonstrating the courage and determination to fight to improve the justice system in challenging circumstances, to the longer term benefit of all.

smileysmileysmiley

 





Like 0      
28 May 2016 12:04 by mariadecastro Star rating in Algeciras (Cadiz). 9344 posts Send private message

Legal Questions? Speak to Maria Direct

Thanks Ads!



_______________________

Maria L. de Castro, JD, MA

Lawyer

Director www.costaluzlawyers.es

El blog de Maria



Like 0      
28 May 2016 12:24 by davemorr Star rating. 16 posts Send private message

Hi Maria,

This is great news and well done to all at Costa Luz lawyers.

SGR have appealed our case to Supreme Court (we are waiting for date). BBVA did not appeal to Supremem Court. We bought from Herrada Del Tollo in Jumilla.

So far we won initial court ruling and were awarded costs in Initial court case. BBVA and SGR appealed, we won again but our costs were not awarded.

Does/Could this SC ruling mean that if/when our case goes to Supreme Court (and if SGR lose), that we could be awarded all our costs again? Or in the case listed below, were that client's costs awarded at all stages?

"CAJA CANARIAS (now BANKIA) SENTENCED BY THE SUPREME COURT TO REFUND ALL OFF-PLAN AMOUNTS PAID BY OUR CLIENTS PLUS INTEREST & COSTS"

Thanks

Dave & Tina

PS - maybe these questions are something we should ask in direct mailing to Maria, but just thought the open forum might be interested in this topic.





Like 2      
28 May 2016 13:13 by ENA Star rating in Weatherfield. 30 posts Send private message

ENA´s avatar

This is truly great news. How much actual money have you received? and how much money has it cost you in legal fees and court costs to get it?



_______________________
"That woman's tongue. If it was a bit longer she could shave with it."



Like 0      
28 May 2016 13:39 by ads Star rating. 4025 posts Send private message

Yes Davemorr, the whole area associated with award of costs is confusing so every little bit of clarification helps to appreciate the overall picture.

Maria is there any SC doctrine now in existence to ensure that costs and legal interest (backdated to date monies were deposited) are awarded whenever a case has been fully upheld by the judiciary and to act as disincentive to Banks appealing on those grounds?

 





Like 0      
28 May 2016 14:03 by mariadecastro Star rating in Algeciras (Cadiz). 9344 posts Send private message

Legal Questions? Speak to Maria Direct

There are two Supreme Court decisions which establish that interests are according to Law, which is from the moment they were paid into developer´s account.

There are numerous Appeal Court Decisions setting interests from payment-into-developers-account

Costs: More arguable as you know that judicial costs are regulated by  the principle of defeating: Costs will be imposed on the party which has been rejected all claims, UNLESS the Court appreciates, with enough legal foundation, that the alleged claim is doubtful in either  fact or law basis. Case Law needs to be included necessarily as part of the fundaments. 

Need/ convenience for appealing needs to be considered on an individual basis. No case is same.

 

 

 


This message was last edited by mariadecastro on 28/05/2016.

_______________________

Maria L. de Castro, JD, MA

Lawyer

Director www.costaluzlawyers.es

El blog de Maria



Like 0      
28 May 2016 15:11 by ads Star rating. 4025 posts Send private message

Thanks so much Maria,

Would costs be compromised in this scenario Maria?

The client's lawsuit is fully upheld against the Bank by the first instance court with legal interest and costs awarded, (but the interest was from date of filing the lawsuit).

However, SC doctrine with regard to backdating of legal interest is established as doctrine prior to the Bank appeal.   

The bank subsequently appeals against the first interest ruling (in full knowledge of all SC doctrine) but the counter claim to that appeal includes request for correction of interest to reflect the latest SC clarification at point of appeal.

If the Bank appeal was subsequently lost in favour of the client, should legal interest be awarded backdated as per the law at time of appeal submission (i.e. backdated to date monies were proven to have been deposited)? And since the Bank's legal team should have been fully aware of the latest SC doctrine prior to appeal, should costs associated with the appeal also be awarded as well as costs as per the first instance ruling? In other words all clients costs associated with the Bank claim are recoverable together with legal interest according to clarification of law associated with their fight for justice

I'm trying to establish if new SC doctrine and award of interest and costs will now act as adequate disincentive to deter Banks from appealing, by getting them to respect the latest SC doctrine/clarification at point of appeal?

Many thanks.





Like 1      

Pages: 1 | 2 | Next |

Post reply    Start new thread


Previous Threads

Urbanisation turns out to be built on rustic land... buy or run ? - 8 posts
HELP WITH FINDING SCHOOLS NEAR ESTEPONA. - 0 posts
Experimento linguístico para mi tesis - 0 posts
Ladies Hairdresser in Estepona/Manilva - 0 posts
Golf Developments With Heated Swimming Pools - 12 posts
LON TERM RENTAL - 0 posts
Osteoarthritis in knees and spain - 1 posts
Driving in Spain in a Motorhome - 25 posts
CHANNEL 4 LOOKING FOR NEW EXPAT BUSINESSES FOR TV SERIES - 0 posts
I successfully got my bank deposit back!! - 13 posts
Young family wanting to know best place for expats in Alicante region - 3 posts
The British College vs Benalmadena International College - 0 posts
fed up with paypal rip off - 2 posts
Crown Pensions will be taken in consideration in Spain as from this year. - 16 posts
Check lists to buy - 6 posts
Business Partner Wanted - 0 posts
Making an English will from Spain - 6 posts
?scam email - 3 posts
movoing to gran canaria - 0 posts
Looking to move to spain - 1 posts
Unpaid Communal Fees - 34 posts
e-liquids - 0 posts
Notary & Land Registry Fees - 3 posts
Water Filters in Sierra Golf. Are you using one? - 3 posts
Incoming pension - 13 posts

Number of posts in this thread: 33

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 | 2 |
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