Petition for Supreme Court decission on Mortgage Stamp Duty Tax

For those of you willing to contribute to a balanced financial system----we have talking  about this for years here at EyeonSpain, this ink below brings you to a petition for the Supreme Court to decide in favour of debtors regarding the Stamp Duty Mortgage Tax:

https://www.change.org/p/tribunal-supremo-no-os-sometais-a-los-intereses-de-los-bancos-respetad-la-constituci%C3%B3n?signed=true

You can find more info on the decission here: https://www.costaluzlawyers.es/2018/10/19/3816/

What has happened after the decission in favour of debtors?

Due to the financial impact of the decission, the president of Chamber Third of the Supreme Court has decided to call the whole Chamber to decide on effects of what is already a firm decission which cannot be supressed or modified.

This Chember is aimed to analyse the Case Law change which will result after the already published decission and two other more which are pending to be made public  and that will follow the same line. That does not necessarily have to mean that the decission will be changed and that it will return to the previous situation in which this tax was paid by the client, since according to the same sources, the priority objective of the plenary is to specify the effects of the nullity of the article of the agreed Regulation In those sentences. That is, to determine if it affects all the mortgages already signed, or from when, or only to those that are signed from now on, among other aspects. 

In any case, good to manifest the desire of consumers rights to be fully respected in this case.

An interesting final paragraph to this petition ( translated)...

“Article 117 of the Spanish Constitution, "Justice emanates from the people and is administered in the name of the King by Judges and Magistrates who are members of the judiciary, independent, immovable, responsible and subject only to the rule of law."

On Thursday, October 18, the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court established that it is the bank that has to pay the tax on legal acts for mortgages. This would mean returning millions of citizens (estimated to be around eight million) money that should never have been charged to us......

A day later, on Friday 19, the president of the room paralyzed this decision motivated by the strong economic losses in the stock market of the banks.

“According to the statement of the Supreme Court, due to "its enormous economic and social impact", the President of the Chamber agreed to "annul all the indications on pending appeals with a similar object".

 We understand that it is an unjust and outrageous decision, it can not be that magistrates of the Supreme Court make decisions based on economic criteria of a few (banks), going over the rights and the general interest of all citizens.”

The continuing problem however, Maria, is that the banks appear at present to be challenging all rulings associated with all law that affects them, and in that process appear to be adding to the already overstretched justice system.

So long as there is no definitive statement ( declared doctrine)  by the Supreme Court that addresses all loopholes with any given law that impacts the Banks, all  that will  happen is that claimants will be subjected once again to prolonged piecemeal litigation until such time as full  clarification on this has been achieved.

This is exactly what has happened with the BG law, where the Banks have continually challenged the law Ley 57/68, in piecemeal fashion, even ignoring growing case law..

Until the SC ensure that laws are watertight, without loopholes that can be abused, and provide SWIFT doctrine in this regard, the Banks will continue their ploys to challenge and sadly compromise the rule of law in Spain at every opportunity.

Agree, it is also happening with Law 57/68. Supreme Court is trying now to cut down previous Case Law in favour of the consumer, mainly by saying that liabilities of

- Depositer banks

- Guarantor banks/ insurance companies

in regards to their duty of care and control on deposited amounts are just if payments were made according to what was established in the contract, to the Bank account expressed there. So from an interpretation by which the Bank or the Insurer had to proactively control on the fulfillment of what it was established in the contract is turning into an interpretation by which if the buyer/ his lawyer did not follow what it was established in the contract, banks cannot be blamed of lack of control.

Thank you Maria for that detail relating to Ley57/68.

This appears extraordinary.

Who will be affected by this and how will this work in practice?

Are they redefining all SC rulings that have been achieved to date that make reference to the requirement for Banks/ Insurers “to proactively control on the fulfilment of what was established in the contract”, and that they had legal obligation to honour the safeguarding of all deposited monies via legal BGs, etc, which have taken years to achieve? 

How does this affect all those BG lawsuits currently in the system, that in all good faith have used existing supportive case law to date in their legal arguments, if this well established case law will suddenly no longer apply? 

Does this mean that all BG claims for those without the detail of guarantor and bank account referenced in their contract currently in the legal system will be compromised according to this latest detail you have identified? 

Perhaps I have misunderstood?

Maria can I ask you, are you acting or have ever acted for ads in any legal claim or bank guarantee dispute. She refuses to answer the question herself.

The thing with all these questions perhaps is....Once asked, and if answered, who actually acts on any information gained by the questions answered, does anyone know anyone who has?

Angeleyes1:

No one is obligated to express, privately or in public, if he is taking legal action or who his/her/must lawyers are. Even less a professional can and/ or should make these statements regarding any client. It is contrary to the ethical duties of our profession.

Now that you use a public mean for this type of manifestations,I wonder too: who are you and what is your interest in knowing this?