24 Mar 2021 15:49:

Answer in bold green, Ads:

Basic questions.

When monies are deposited into a Spanish Banks safe keeping into a defined developer account, what law protects those monies from “ theft” by the Bank itself, I.e. enables the return of those monies upon request, when substantiated proof of deposit has been provided together with substantiated proof of developer breach of contract? Was this not law Ley 57/68? Yes, it is.

What laws are in place to safeguard interim monies deposited into developer accounts in the event of developer insolvency? Was this not law Ley 57/68? Yes, it is.

What legal guarantees are in place to ensure that in the event of developer insolvency deposited monies are rightly safeguarded? Was this not law Ley 57/68? Yes, it is.

What legal mechanisms are in place to ensure that safeguarding existing guarantee laws of this nature are adhered to? Judicial mechanisms. Is this not the rule of law which provides the basics upon which laws in Spain are required to be enforced and adhered to? Correct.

What message does this relay to purchasers when Spanish Banks and legal mechanisms in place to protect are “allowed” to be overridden by the highest court in the land ? ....

Is the Supreme Court in this instance in breach of the rule of law? It clearly is , in my opinion. In sensitive matters such as property, second residencies, retirement savings, consumers

Is the Supreme Court now acting in a protectionist manner to safeguard the Banks at the expense of purchasers? It is, in my opinion.

What message does this relay to the whole of the Spanish real estate industry if protective safeguarding laws are not enforced and adhered to? Does this undermine faith in this industry as a whole? It does, in my opinion.

What message does this relay to the wider aspect of adhering to the rule of law? Terrible, in my opinion.

Does this undermine faith in the rule of law and thereby undermine faith in  the Spanish justice system? It does, in my opinion. And in the European Court of Human Rights, as it has dismissed to give its voice on the matter, which we based on Right to Property, one of the rights of the Chart, saying that it is not under its scope of juriscition.

How can any of this be in the interests of Spain as a whole when it appears to be undermining trust in the very basics of justice and Banking compliance, the basis upon which the Spanish real estate industry is so reliant? Should be alarming as it is voiding all the active surveillance duties of banks in off plan projects. The very essence of Law 57/68.

Stay strong Maria and once again thank you for all your educative postings. Thanks. Not easy sometimes!

Thread: A strong battle against Supreme Court´s recent interpretation of Law 57/68 we are in

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

23 Mar 2021 10:58:

A recent email to someone who contacted us after losing a case against the bank where her off plan payments were made.

Supreme Court  has recently set that teh control duties of the Bank do not exist if the payment ws not detailed by the client. This ws never made a condition for the client who trust on the existence of a protected account and is against the protective charcter of Law 57/68. As we say to the client, we are trying to battle this in favour of clients needing it.

 

Dear xxxxx:

 

It is totally natural and reasonable you are perplexed. Interpretation of Provision 1.2 of Law 57/68 ( liabilities of deposit banks) was totally rights till very recently, our Supreme Court made what we consider a very wrong and against Law interpretation of the same by stating that for a Bank to be made liable ( due to lack if active surveillance of funds deposited in their accounts), the buyer had to (1)pay himself, never through an intermediary-- requisite that has been later on suppressed by SC--- and (2) specify property in the off plan payment.

 

These requisites are against former CaseLaw interpretation on active surveillance of banks. We are still defending this cases. So far we have failed both at the Constitutional Court and European Court of Human Rights. Cases were not admitted into procedure by none of these Courts.

 

Many Appeal Courts ( lower than Supreme) defend that there is no no need for specification and we strongly defend that as according to Supreme Court, the surveillance duties starts as soon as a Bank realises the possibility of off plan funds being deposited in a developer´s bank account, that is , in our opinion, as soon as the Bank account is opened by the developer. There are also Money Laundering protection legal reasons which makes this control necessary since a developer opens an account.

 

The change of criteria by the Supreme Court is the reason we won cases in the past which are not being won anymore

 

Hope this explains

 

Kind regards

 

Maria

Thread: A strong battle against Supreme Court´s recent interpretation of Law 57/68 we are in

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

12 Mar 2021 09:59:

After a recent decission by the Supreme Court, dated February 2021, denied claims on Plusvalia can be re-instated if certain requisites are met. This is also possible if the denial by the Administration is not older than 4 years

 

Thread: Law changed to protect the councils ?

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

04 Mar 2021 10:10:

Excellent

M

Thread: Life Insurance for Spanish mortgages

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

04 Mar 2021 07:40:

Thanks Fowler! It has been a pleasure: We are here for any other matter you may need

M

Thread: Costaluz lawyers return of Off plan deposit plus costs and interest

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