29 Nov 2018 12:00:

Dear Kavanagh:

With all my personal respect, I cannot agree with your words. There are wonderful professionals in Spain striving for a better system.

M

Thread: Bank Repossessions Again

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

27 Nov 2018 12:40:

Ads,

Not, it has not. Supreme Court is defending that in some cases, some guarantors were unable to know on their obligations. This has a strong contra-defense in the fact that the Ministerial Order that developed Law 57/68 made contracts available to guarantors so they could know about the content of their contractual commitment with buyers.  Stil, it is not a change of doctrine, which I do hope it will not happen. 

 What is desirable is that the lawyers who are defending these  cases at Appeal and  Supreme Court stages continue to present the arguments in favor of the buyer contained in the law and in the existing judicial doctrine.  We are, of course, on it. I'm sure the rest of lawyers in Spain, are conscious and fighting for this too.

Thread: Bank Repossessions Again

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

26 Nov 2018 14:06:

Dear Baz1946:

The Spanish system of justice has its flaws, like all the systems of justice in the world, but it is not a corrupt system and, in relation to off plan purchases, has proved to be strong in its punishment to the banks.

 

Thread: Bank Repossessions Again

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

26 Nov 2018 11:43:

Ads:

I am answering your questions below in bold green ( same text as your email): 

As SC changes it’s interpretation with regard to Ley 57/68  in favour of Banks, which threatens precious case law and doctrine achieved to date,  is there a heightened risk that lawyers legal indemnity will be compromised by proliferation of litigation against lawyers ( as opposed to Banks), as the risk of insurance companies becoming insolvent grows?  Well, I am sure claims against lawyers in those cases will not be as numerous as to make Insurance companies insolvent.Thereafter once insolvent and in the absence of any similar law in place to protect, as exists within BG law according to Ley 57/68,claimants will no longer be able to reclaim their monies via lawyers legal indemnity! And ironically, wouldn’t this be a repeat of the same scenario that compromised early claimants against developers?

 

Doesn’t this demonstrate exactly why INALIENABLE rights afforded by LEY 57/68 was so critical to purchasers protection from the outset, and why legal certainty MUST prevail in this regard?

 

The questions keep coming because there is ongoing failure to affirm legal certainty to the fact that offplan purchasers were afforded INALIENABLE RIGHTS FROM THE OUTSET OF DEPOSIT ACCORDING TO A LAW INTENDED TO PROTECT. 

 

So long as litigation is allowed to proliferate in this manner, placing innocent claimants at risk ( and at growing risk of being scapegoated in that process as protectionist forces come into play from within , which in itself appears to be in contravention of the rule of law), and undermining a system of justice in that process, then Banks will continue to cause chaos, and will never be made fully accountable for their denial of purchasers INALIENABLE rights for return of monies in the event of proven developer breach.

 

We should all remain aware of the need to comply with the rule of law if any civilised system of justice is to prevail. But also the need for legal certainty becomes paramount. Undermining the rule of law and failure to achieve timely legal certainty, with due respect of precious case law and doctrine that has taken years to achieve, places all citizens at risk of abuse by powerful institutions, let alone individuals.

I trust our Supreme Court  to confirm the great doctrine it has produced so far and not to change it.

Thread: Bank Repossessions Again

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

26 Nov 2018 09:23:

Ads: Totally agree with you: in my opinion, Bar associations need to be very active on controlling and punishing lawyers´ breaches of the deontological code. It is, as you well said, for the good of all. We need to take our ethical obligations very seriously.

Of course, lawyers claim against lawyers.

Thread: Bank Repossessions Again

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