08 Nov 2013 12:32 PM:

Dear Brian and Sue

According to Spanish law (Law 57/68 on delivery sums advanced for house purchases) - mandatory law implies that clauses can not be agreed to change its content. The Bank has obligations not only when there is a guarantee. Also the law says that the Bank, under its responsibility, has to require the developer the repayment guarante of the amounts advanced by the buyers in order to allow the opening of the special account through which the developer is required to perceive them . " if the Bank has allowed the special account opening and through it the developer has entered the quantities delivered by you and if the bank has not required the developer the guarantee of returning them, if it happens and if the developer do not build the housing, the Bank should respond by not requiring warranty.

I am also pleased to inform you that the High Court has just accepted in the case that I have (which is with guarantee) that the Bank must also pay the amounts that were delivered and were not in the warranty.

I would encourage you to put in touch with me ( Telef. 0034 971 36 82 36 , email carlos at abogadosmaceda . com ) or you can send me your email

Community thread: La Tercia Real Deposit Refund - Don't Give In!

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

01 Jul 2013 6:40 PM:

 I am Carlos Maceda de Olives, Spanish lawyer, of the Bar Association of the Balearic Islands, and I am pleased to report (the understanding that can be of your interest) I have had involvement in recovery action against the Banco Popular successfully. I chose not to claim against Proyectos y Desarrollos Urfesan, Peinsa because there was no guarantee of solvency. We claim on the bank guarantee amounting to EUR 75,788.10 EUR 14,924.02 principal and legal interest and we have been granted. It has already been paid and delivered to our customers. At first the judge refused to grant the approval because it expired the guarantee and we were claiming more (78,788) of what appeared in the guarantee (75,788). After resorting, Madrid High Court has given us the reason. Now I am aware of a new appeal because again the judge did not accept the difference of $ 3,000 for being an amount that was not in the guarantee. I understand that neither the term nor the amount of the guarantee higher can avoid the mandatory application of Spanish law, because is an internal agreement between the bank and the developer.

 

This message was last edited by eos_moderators on 02/07/2013.

This message was last edited by eos_moderators on 02/07/2013.
Forum thread: RECOVERED FUNDS TERCIA REAL

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

05 Apr 2013 2:18 PM:

 I am Carlos Maceda de Olives, Spanish lawyer, of the Bar Association of the Balearic Islands, and I am pleased to report (the understanding that can be of your interest) I have had involvement in recovery action against the Banco Popular successfully. I chose not to claim against Proyectos y Desarrollos Urfesan, Peinsa because there was no guarantee of solvency. We claim on the bank guarantee amounting to EUR 75,788.10 EUR 14,924.02 principal and legal interest and we have been granted. It has already been paid and delivered to our customers. At first the judge refused to grant the approval because it expired the guarantee and we were claiming more (78,788) of what appeared in the guarantee (75,788). After resorting, the High Court has given us the reason. Now I am aware of a new appeal because again the judge did not accept the difference of $ 3,000 for being an amount that was not in the guarantee. I understand that neither the term nor the amount of the guarantee higher can avoid the mandatory application of Spanish law, because is an internal agreement between the bank and the developer.

Community thread: La Tercia Real Deposit Refund - Don't Give In!

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

05 Apr 2013 2:14 PM:

 I am Carlos Maceda de Olives, Spanish lawyer, of the Bar Association of the Balearic Islands, and I am pleased to report (the understanding that can be of your interest) I have had involvement in recovery action against the Banco Popular successfully. I chose not to claim against Proyectos y Desarrollos Urfesan, Peinsa because there was no guarantee of solvency. We claim on the bank guarantee amounting to EUR 75,788.10 EUR 14,924.02 principal and legal interest and we have been granted. It has already been paid and delivered to our customers. At first the judge refused to grant the approval because it expired the guarantee and we were claiming more (78,788) of what appeared in the guarantee (75,788). After resorting, the High Court has given us the reason. Now I am aware of a new appeal because again the judge did not accept the difference of $ 3,000 for being an amount that was not in the guarantee. I understand that neither the term nor the amount of the guarantee higher can avoid the mandatory application of Spanish law, because is an internal agreement between the bank and the developer.

Community thread: RECOVERING FUNDS

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