| The Comments |
Dear Kerric:
Does your deed have "clausula suelo"? A recent decission ( 17th of July) by the European Court of Justice has determined that houses cannot be repossessed while the Clausula Suelo case is on.
_______________________
Maria L. de Castro, JD, MA
Lawyer
Director www.costaluzlawyers.es
0
Like
|
Hi Kerric
I am sorry to read people are still going through this nightmare. We and 5 other property owners in our area moved away from Arocca and had someone in Torreijveca fight our cause along with a solicitor and barrister. It was very daunting in court especially not being able to understand what was going on but our representative and barrister did what was necessary and the court signed off our deeds. There was an embargo on our property due to the money TU owed to the Spanish Tax people but that was also sorted.
We were fortunate to sell the property just over 4 years ago - our dream was tainted. We lost count of the money we spent but I was not prepared to let TU have me over twice. The corruption is so deep seated it beggars belief !!
We do still visit the villa for holidays as it was sold to a family member.- in fact we are due there in September. Would we ever buy in Spain again - NEVER!
I hope justice will prevail for all those still caught up in this mess.
Very Best Wishes
0
Like
|
Still no deeds Swmo57. No Certificate of Habitation, No water or electric contracts. No post. Urbanisation unfinished. TU bust! Still spending money on lawyers. Had to pull out of CPC as they are using THe High Court in London which is mucho costly. Seem to have good representation in Spain now. Now let me see. When did I move in? Oh yes - 5th January 2005. Unbelieveable and the bank still want 97,000 euros even after I paid 100% cash. The place isn't worth 50,000 euros. Just be patient I keep telling myself. No good getting stressed over something I have no control over. Fly
0
Like
|
Hi Fly 380,
just read Kerric story , why don't you use HIS SOLICITORS firm which seems good as it has sorted his deeds and embargo.
i certainly would like to have the address details Mr Kerric.
all the best for all of us who are waiting to sort out this spanish nightmares.
0
Like
|
I think it depends on which of the phases the property is on. Bosque de las Lomas2 has virtually been sorted with utility contracts, deeds but no LFO (a town hall cluster% $&* rather than the TU/Atlas/Aroca fiasco.).
BDL3, however, is a different story. No records of payments, no deeds, no utilities etc. TU went bust without paying the banks anything and the banks are trying to get the money from the owners despite them already having paid.
It cost us thousands of euros to get our deeds on BDL2, at least 5 court hearings and years of watching the value sink lower and lower. When eventually sorted we still had to lodge €200 against a future LFO and €600 to get thr registry to change the deeds to show nothing was owed despite us not taking a mortgage (TU took out an illegal mortgage to fund other illegal developments). After selling for less than half what we paid (not including the thousands in solicitor and court fees) we vowed not to buy again in Spain. However, we found a good developer, a good solicitor and a good bank and it all went swimmingly.
That Atlas and Aroca are still in business is a constant surprise. BDL2 should have got them closed down and BDL3 should have seen them doing 20 years at His Majesty's Pleasure.
0
Like
|
Has any legal firm done any research to check if there is any European directive that can be applied against a company such as Atlas/Aroca (or the Banks for that matter) where they fail to adequately compensate those exposed to abuse of this nature so as to act as disincentive for further abuse?
Alternatively has any case been brought to the Supreme Court in Spain to gain a ruling to act as precedence to ensure adequate compensation from companies/Banks who have failed to ensure provision of the required legal documentation is made available within a defined timeframe?
This form of continuing abuse does the Spanish real estate industry no favours!
This message was last edited by ads on 05/08/2014.
0
Like
|
|
Thanks Maria, but in the interim shouldn't there be some form of register of "accredited companies" established in Spain by the various professional bodies/actors, to act as a self regulation mechanism such that any company who continues to act in an abusive manner (and brings the Spanish real estate industry into disrepute) could be struck off the register? Wouldn't such a system "weed out" those who fail to reform and act as an effective disincentive?
0
Like
|
Ads:
Does something like what you are describing exist and work effectively in your country?
_______________________
Maria L. de Castro, JD, MA
Lawyer
Director www.costaluzlawyers.es
0
Like
|
LEY 57/1968 Won Case in First Instance Court against BANCO SABADELL for our client who purchased an off-plan property from the developer Tecnologia Urbanistica at Colinas De La Zenia Elite Fase III in Orihuela Costa
We were pleased to inform our client recently that we had won their case against Banco Sabadell (formerly Banco CAM) in the First Instance Court.
The client paid their off-plan deposit according to the Purchase Contract to the developer’s bank account at Banco CAM (now Banco Sabadell). The client did not receive an individual Guarantee for their off-plan deposit from the developer, Tecnologia Urbanistica or from Banco CAM.
The First Instance Court has now found the Bank guilty according to its legal obligations under Article 1.2 of LEY 57/1968. The bank must refund the amount paid to the developer’s account plus interest at the legal rate from the date the money was paid into the account. Legal costs were not imposed on the Bank due to the fact that the Judge is of the opinion there was conflicting jurisprudence regarding banks liabilities according to LEY 57/1968 at the time the Lawsuit was filed and the Bank submitted its written defence.
Re: YOUR CASE AGAINST BANCO DE SABADELL S.A.
PO xxxx/2015
Please find attached Sentence No. xxx/2016 from the First Instance Court No.1 in Orihuela.
Your case against BANCO SABADELL has been won.
The final paragraph of the First Instance Sentence delivered on 5 September 2016 and notified on 5 September 2016 states:
“Upholding the Lawsuit filed by xxxxxx against BANCO DE SABADELL S.A. with the following pronouncements:
1. I declare the legal responsibility of the entity BANCO DE SABADELL S.A. pursuant to Article 1.2 of LEY 57/1968 and therefore condemn the financial entity to refund the sum of xx,xxx Euro, being the amount deposited in the account opened by the developer in the said bank.
2. The amount indicated will accrue interest at the legal rate from the date of payment, or in this case, the date the funds were deposited in the account opened by the developer in Banco de Sabadell S.A. The interest rate will be increased by 2 points from the date of this Sentence according to Article 576 of the Civil Procedure Act.
3. Without the express imposition of costs of the proceedings”
So BANCO SABADELL is sentenced to refund the amount of xx,xxx€ plus interest at the legal rate from the date the funds were paid into the developer’s account opened at Banco Sabadell.
The Judge did not impose costs on the bank; therefore each party will pay its own costs.
Interesting statements from the Judge in the Sentence were:
“On 12 November 2015 the plaintiffs filed a Lawsuit against Banco Sabadell, requesting the conviction of the bank according to its responsibility under Article 1.2 of LEY 57/1968. The plaintiff requested the refund of the total amount paid to the developer under the Purchase Contract plus interest & costs, alternatively, the amount actually credited to the Banco Sabadell account opened by the developer, which was 3,000€ less than the total amount.
Banco Sabadell opposed the Lawsuit and said that it had not guaranteed the funds and that the funds were paid to an ordinary current account opened by the developer, over which the bank had no control or monitoring.
The Preliminary Hearing was held on 8 March 2016 & the Trial was held on 23 May 2016.
Documentary evidence was provided to prove that xx,xxx€ was entered into the former Banco CAM (now Sabadell) account opened by the developer. However, there is no evidence to confirm that the amount of £2,000 paid by cheque was entered into the developer’s account at Banco CAM. This leads us to analyze the alternative claim for xx,xxx€ being the amount actually paid to the developer’s account at Banco CAM.
The former Deputy Director of the Banco CAM branch in which the account was held, gave evidence at the Trial. She stated that the account was an ordinary account opened by the developer and that it was very difficult to control and monitor income in this type of account.
It is a completely reprehensible attitude of the bank knowing that it was an account opened by a developer which was funded largely by amounts paid by buyers to purchase off-plan homes. However, this does not prevent this account to be considered as a Special Account according to the regulatory framework.
Therefore, the bank has a legal duty to ensure these funds were guaranteed by an Insurance Certificate or Bank Guarantee. Having failed in its legal duty, the bank then has a legal liability.
The bank should not allow the opening of accounts or the placing of deposits in those accounts, without first ensuring that the developer has assumed a legal obligation to guarantee the repayment of the funds.
The bank was fully aware of the business of the developer and the fact that the account was being used to receive funds from off-plan buyers. The fact that the account was opened as a normal current account, as alleged by the defendant bank, cannot prejudice the plaintiffs as the Supreme Court Sentence of 30 April 2015 confirms.
Banks that receive funds from off-plan buyers into developer’s accounts, although not called Special Accounts, must be responsible to the buyers for the total amounts paid to these accounts opened in its branches. This doctrine, if there is any doubt, has again been reiterated and confirmed by the Sentences of the Supreme Court dated 9 & 17 March 2016.
As for costs, the plaintiff requested costs to be imposed on the bank. Even though the Lawsuit has been upheld substantially in its alternative claim for the amount deposited in the developer’s account at the defendant bank, there is more or less uniform criteria in the Courts of this city (Orihuela) and in the Provincial Appeal Court of Alicante, to understand that the question before the prosecution regarding the liability of the Bank according to Article 1.2 of LEY 57/1968, has resulted in contradictory jurisprudence comparable to the existence of doubt. So I plead the faculty contained in Article 394 of the Civil Procedure Act not to impose costs on the bank. The Supreme Court Sentence of 21 December 2015 which clarifies the responsibility of financial institutions had not been published at the time the Lawsuit was filed (12 November 2015) or when the bank filed its written defence to the Court”
BANCO SABADELL has 20 working days from the date of notification of the Sentence, which was 5 September 2016, to comply with the Sentence or to file an Appeal to the Provincial Appeal Court of Alicante.
Although any appeal must be submitted strictly within the 20 working day deadline, we may not receive notification of an Appeal or of a firm sentence from the Court for a few weeks after the deadline due to the workload of the Court.
If an Appeal is filed by BANCO SABADELL it will be necessary for us to file an Opposition to the Appeal on your behalf.
_______________________
Maria L. de Castro, JD, MA
Lawyer
Director www.costaluzlawyers.es
0
Like
|
Does this company (Tecnologia Urbanistica) still exist ?
No administrators to sell the assets and pay down the debts? Or is it resolved and the family behind the company have bought out some assets and are free to rent them out privately. To hell with the people TU conned.
Commercial properties build and owned by them, and empty since 2010 are being touted for rent privately. I mean mobile phone numbers pinned to the wall and no advertising. (the CC at Bosque de Las Lomas. Blue Lagoon / Las Fillipinas) Different members of the Martin family have at various times claimed to own them privatlely but since they have been named locally they send their minnions to show them. (Including at least one man who worked as one of TU foremen 10 years ago). Many people have viewed them but their solicitors have warned them off.
But a year of no success has made them change tact, and phone number. They slowly (very slowly) open and clean different units to make it look active and tell anyone who asks that a few units have been snapped up encouraging anyone on the fence to take a chance. It seems to be working.
If somebody was to sign a lease and invest all their money in ronovating one of these units would they loose it all when the creditors eventually turn up?
Is it conceivable that the family behind Tecnologia Urbanistica could end up with possession of these prize assets in a community hit hard by the activities of TU? That would be hard to fathom but maybe it is possible down here.
There are 12 commercial units right on the main road that would acheive good rent, so it seems wrong that they would waste a year trying to rent them out with a 5 euro sign from the DIY shop pinned to the wall instead of a big banner. Everybody wants these units.
Does anyone know a solicitor actively chasing TU or their assets? Can Emilio really get his paws on rent money after all he did.... But maybe it is resolved and they have these assets free and clear and what they are doing is perfectly legal.... good luck to them.
....if not, what about the general public they are pitching to
This message was last edited by geecee71 on 26/02/2017.
This message was last edited by geecee71 on 26/02/2017.
0
Like
|
|