07 Jun 2017 19:19:

Would you know if they failed to provide evidences of payment Ciaron, as I noticed Maria observed " Till this was clear in Courts, it was sensible to also bring to judges evidence of payments."?

Perhaps best to gain that evidence anyway to minimise the risk of any judicial dismissal ?

 

 

Thread: ALL AIFOS´BANK GUARANTEES NOW AVAILABLE

--------------------------------------

07 Jun 2017 10:51:

One aspect currently causing growing concern is inconsistency of rulings relating to interest awards Maria, so could you please advise if this has come before the Supreme Court, and if so in the interests of transparency, could you please advise when was this submitted to the SC for further clarification and final ruling?

In the meantime are clients being subjected to once again an increase in appeals to obtain their rights in this regard (sadly yet again a repeated exercise for those who have been pioneering for clear doctrine from the SC on previous aspects relating to BG law and inalienable rights).

In the interim therefore could you please advise if the judiciary are also protecting clients by their rulings at appeal level to reflect the purposeful intent of Banks to "use " this current lack of clarification and subject clients to yet more appeals with all the associated costs, let alone the impact this has on the already overloaded court system?

I have stressed on many occasions how grateful  many clients are for your ongoing educative postings which not only help your own client base but also many others caught up in this scenario. For that I thank you most sincerely Maria.

 

This message was last edited by ads on 07/06/2017.
Thread: ALL AIFOS´BANK GUARANTEES NOW AVAILABLE

--------------------------------------

07 Jun 2017 02:57:

Briando

There appear to be many vulnerabilities relating to this whole sorry saga and I agree the more that lawyers can do to minimise these vulnerabilities through their client care systems and enhanced communication the better.

But this is not the only factor that needs to be addressed in terms of client's vulnerabilities.

Trust in the legal system is also at stake here, i.e. trust in the consistency of judicial rulings and " reasonable" timeframes to effect justice and enforcement of rulings.

And sometimes the latter problem relating to delays or inconsistency of rulings can give the impression that this is a failure of the legal team, whereas in reality it is a failure of inadequate resourcing of the justice system that has sadly resulted in abusive and compromising delays.

My current concerns relate to the latter and the perceived growing instances of clients either subjected to  Bank appeals that are subsequently overturned, or those clients requiring appeals ( subsequently upheld) following inconsistent  judicial rulings.

Hence my query re the need for effective monitoring to minimise inconsistent judicial rulings and ensure that adequate resources are being made available to those courts/ regions where delays are increasingly compromising timely justice and enforcement.

I am not referring to " reasonable delays" here, but to delays which are are far in excess of the norm....i.e. years between lawsuit submission and acceptance into the court system,....years to achieve first instance rulings..  years to achieve appeal rulings....years to achieve Supreme Court rulings, ....years to achieve enforcements and return of monies according to successful rulings....years to achieve return of interest and costs.

The lack of resources in some regions now appears to be contravening the rule of law.

Hence the call for the legal fraternity and Bar Associations to recognise these growing problems, to come together and campaign " as one " with evidence to substantiate the compromising effects from under- resourcing  of the court administration and justice systems in Spain.

To be honest, many have been highlighting this problem for years, but only now is it  significantly impacting trust in the legal fraternity and I  for one sincerely hope that this is adequately addressed to the benefit of all.

Thread: ALL AIFOS´BANK GUARANTEES NOW AVAILABLE

--------------------------------------

06 Jun 2017 15:39:

Thank you Maria. It is much appreciated.

So where proof of all monies deposited into developer accounts is provided to the court ( regardless of which Bank) and a general BG exists as opposed to individual guarantees, the judge should rule in favour of a client?

In your firsthand experience is this being consistently recognised by the judiciary and if not are clients being exposed to unnecessary appeals?

To your knowledge is any monitoring of appeals being done to determine if irregular patterns of appeals are occurring so as to protect clients from either Bank abuse of the appeal system ( where Bank appeals are  ultimately and more frequently being overidden) or judicial inconsistency is occurring in any particular court or region ( where first instance rulings are now being more frequently overidden at appeal)? Or for that matter where irregular patterns of appeal court rulings are out of line with growing and correct judicial interpretation in this particular regard?

Alongside these understandable concerns relating to Bank behaviour and accountability and judicial consistency, presumably it is the duty of lawyers to request proof ( either from the client, the Bank, or previous conveyancing lawyer) of all monies deposited ( to ascertain that these monies were deposited correctly into developer accounts) and have proof of all guarantees in existence for that development prior to submitting a lawsuit?

Thread: ALL AIFOS´BANK GUARANTEES NOW AVAILABLE

--------------------------------------

06 Jun 2017 00:02:

In principle is it correct to assume that General Bank Guarantors are responsible for ALL monies deposited ( where no individual guarantee(s) have been provided) so long as it can be proven that monies were deposited into DEVELOPER bank accounts?
The key point being the general guarantor Bank is ultimately responsible for all monies advanced to developer accounts, irrespective of which individual developer bank took the monies, whenever they failed to provide individual bank guarantees?

is this legal principle correct Maria? In which case has the judge got this ruling wrong?

In terms of being called before the court, does the client in civil cases have the right to request a legal expert to speak on their behalf whenever they are subjected to any form of complex legal cross questioning ( for which they understandably have no prior legal knowledge or understanding)? How are clients protected in these circumstances when they have in effect paid legal representatives to act on their behalf (with all due diligence) with regard to ALL matters associated with purchase contracts? Is this form of cross questioning in court not considered an .unfair practice by the Banks.... disregarding their legal counsel to act on their behalf in all matters? Why should a judge or Bank be allowed to call  a client to court in civil cases when the client has engaged a lawyer to act on their behalf? Surely a client cannot be expected to comprehend purchase contract and/or BG law? Is this an abusive practice by the Banks?

PerhapsI have misunderstood? 

 

This message was last edited by ads on 06/06/2017.
Thread: ALL AIFOS´BANK GUARANTEES NOW AVAILABLE

--------------------------------------