GM LEGAL EXPERTS Legal Blog

NEWS ABOUT JUDICIAL DECISSIONS / NOVEDADES JURISPRUDENCIALES

2012-02-22T04:22:00.002-08:00

SGR APPEAL REJECTED. BANK MUST REFUND TO A PURCHASER OF SANTA ANA DEL MONTE WHO DID NOT HOLD AN INDIVIDUAL BANK GUARANTEE THE DEPOSIT PLUS LEGAL INTEREST UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF A GENERIC GUARANTEE

Today there are excellent news for the Santa Ana purchasers' who are looking for the refund of their deposits through actions against the Banks under the provisions of the generic guarantee and the 57/68 Act.

The Magistrate's Court from Alicante has rejected the appeal filed by the SGR against a sentence from the First Instance Court nº 6 from Alicante, and has confirmed that the lack of an individual bank guarantee doesn't prevent the purchaser to get the deposit back from the bank under the provisions of the generic guarantee. So SGR has been sentenced to refund the deposit, plus legal interest and the defense cost for the whole procedure. This sentence is not definitive yet, because it can be appeal at the High Court (Tribunal Supremo) by SGR, but it is a big, huge step for the claims being managed in this Law Firm in behalf several Santa Ana's buyers, because we already know what can we expect if the case reach the Magistrate's Court.

Of course, this sentence is also relevant for all those purchasers of other developments who are claiming against banks under the provisions of generic guarantees (for example, Trampolin Hills).

Copy of the sentence is shown below.

LA AUDIENCIA PROVINCIAL DE ALICANTE DESESTIMA LA APELACION DE LA SGR CONTRA LA SENTENCIA QUE LE CONDENABA A PAGAR EL DEPOSITO INCREMENTADO CON EL INTERÉS LEGAL A UN COMPRADOR QUE CARECÍA DE AVAL INDIVIDUAL, EN BASE A LA EXISTENCIA DE UNA PÓLIZA COLECTIVA

Hoy hay buenas noticias para los compradores de la promoción Santa Ana del Monte que están reclamando judicialmente a los Bancos la devolución de sus depósitos con fundamento en la existencia de una póliza de contragarantía o colectiva, a pesar de carecer de aval individual.

La Audiencia Provincial de Alicante ha desestimado la apelación formulada por la SGR contra la sentencia del Juzgado de Primera Instancia nº 6 que la condenaba a devolver el depósito más el interés legal a un comprador que carecía de aval individual, en base a la existencia de una póliza colectiva. La Audiencia entiende que la ausencia de Aval individual ni impide al comprador reclamar la devolución de su depósito en el procedimiento ordinario con base a la existencia de una póliza colectiva. Esta sentencia todavía no es firme porque se puede recurrir ante el Tribunal Supremo, pero es un gran, enorme paso hacia adelante para las demandas que ha presentado este despacho en representación de varios compradores de Santa Ana, dado que podemos saber que nos espera en caso de que alcanzamos la segunda instancia.

Por supuesto, esta sentencia también es relevante para todos aquellos compradores de otras promociones que han demandado a los bancos en base a la existencia de una póliza de contragarantía (por ejemplo, Trampolin Hills).

Copia de la sentencia a continuación.

AP Alicante 8-2-12 _ Poliza Sgr - Herrada 22-2-12

GM LEGAL EXPERTS WON CASE / CASO GANADO POR GM LEGAL EXPERTS

2012-02-03T01:37:00.000-08:00

COPY OF A BANK GUARANTEE FOR TRAMPOLIN HILLS SUCCESSFULLY ENFORCED

The First Instance Court nº 1 from Valencia has sentenced the Bank to refund the principal plus the legal interest covered by an individual Bank Guarantee despite the purchaser didn't hold the original. The Court interpretates that the bank guarantee copy was authenticated by the Bank's representatives who answered the legal letter sent by GM through the Notary before submmiting the claim, because he did not deny the authenticity of the guarantee, and just stated that it was cancelled. Because of the authentication, the bank guarantee's copy is enforceable.

EJECUTADA LA COPIA DE UN AVAL BANCARIO DE LA PROMOCIÓN TRAMPOLIN HILLS

El juzgado de Primera Instancia nº 1 de Valencia ha despachado ejecución contra el Banco a fin de que pague el principal y los intereses garantizados en aval bancario a pesar de que el comprador no poseía el original. El Juzgado entiende que la copia del aval fue adverada por el representante del Banco que contestó al requerimiento notarial que se les remitió con carácter previo a la presentación de la demanda, puesto que no negó la autenticidad del aval, sino que la admitió al contestar que el mismo había sido cancelado. La adveración de la copia del aval es determinante para el Juzgado de su ejecutividad.

GM LEGAL EXPERTS NEWS / NOTICIAS DE GM LEGAL EXPERTS

2011-12-20T05:59:00.000-08:00

BBVA'S GENERIC GUARANTEE FOR HERRADA DEL TOLLO (SANTA ANA DEL MONTE) FINALLY RELEASED

Despite we were already aware that BBVA and Herrada del Tollo signed a generic guarantee contract for Santa Ana del Monte, we have finally got today access to the document, and there are three esential aspects to bear in mind:

- the aim of the policy is, literally, to guarantee the deposits paid by ALL the purchasers of the development San Ana del Monte. So it is a contract signed under the provisions of the Law 57/68.

- the contract does not mention any "special" account number into which deposits should have been paid in order to enforce the guarantee.

- The top credit set on the contract has not been reached yet (I mean, the amount of deposits guaranteed by BBVA under the provisions of this contract it is still under the top credit set on it).

SALE A LA LUZ LA LINEA DE AVALES DEL BBVA PARA LA PROMOCIÒN SANTA ANA DEL MONTE (HERRADA DEL TOLLO SL).

Aunque ya nos constaba la firma por el BBVA y Herrada del Tollo de una línea de avales para la promoción Santa Ana del Monte, no ha sido hasta hoy que hemos podido tener acceso al contenido de la misma, del que deben resaltarse tres aspectos:

- La finalidad de la línea, según se señala literalmente en la misma, es garantizar las cantidades anticipadas por los compradores de la promoción Santa Ana del Monte, sin límite o restricción. Por lo tanto se trata de una póliza emitida con sujeción a la Ley 57/68.

- El contrato no establece como condición para la operatividad de la garantía que los anticipos se hallan ingresado en una cuenta determinada ("cuenta especial").

- No se ha dispuesto de la totalidad de la cantidad establecidas en la póliza como cantidad máxima cubierta, esto es, el número del total de los anticipos avalados por el BBVA está por debajo de la suma máxima garantizada.

GM LEGAL EXPERTS WON CASE / CASO GANADO POR GM LEGAL EXPERTS

2011-12-05T03:44:00.001-08:00

BANK GUARANTEE FOR 3 MOLINOS RESORT SUCCESSFULLY ENFORCED

A customer from our Law Firm has already got his deposit back from Banco Santander after enforcing his bank guarantee in the Court. The Bank did accept the claim and pay the principal, plus legal interest and defense cost, into the court's account.

AVAL BANCARIO DE 3 MOLINO RESORT EJECUTADO CON ÉXITO

Un cliente de nuestro despacho ha recibido ya del Banco Santader el depósito pagado a la promotora, tras instar la ejecución del aval bancario del que era beneficiario en el Juzgado. El Banco se allanó a la demanda e ingresó el principal, más los intereses y costas en la cuenta de depósitos y consignaciones del Juzgado.

NEWS ABOUT JUDICIAL DECISSIONS / NOVEDADES JURISPRUDENCIALES

2011-11-10T06:22:00.000-08:00

THE BURGOS MAGISTRATES COURT SENTENCES AGAIN A BANK TO REFUND THE DEPOSIT TO THE PURCHASER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF A GENERIC GUARANTEE

TheMagistrates' Court from Burgos has sentenced again a Bank to refund the depositto a purchaser under the provisions of a generic guarantee and the 57/68 Act.The Court understands that the lack of delivery of an individual guarantee tothe purchasers, the lack of payment of the deposit into an special account, orthe "supposed" lack of knowledge of the purchase contract by theBank, are not enforceable against the purchaser, because those are developer'sduties, whose breach can't affect the purchaser, as long as he fulfilled hiscontractual obligations.

A copy ofthe sentence is attached.

LA AUDIENCIA PROVINCIAL DE BURGOS SENTENCIA DE NUEVO A UN BANCO A PAGAR EL DEPÓSITO A UN COMPRADOR A PESAR DE QUE ÉSTE NO ERA BENEFICIARIO DE UN AVAL BANCARIO INDIVIDUALIZADO.

La Audiencia Provincial de Burgos ha condenado nuevamente a una entidad bancaria a pagar el depósito a un comprador en base a la suscripción por el banco y la promotora de una línea de afianzamiento y a lo dispuesto en la Ley 57/1968. La Sala entiende que ni la falta de individualización del aval, la falta de ingreso en una cuenta especial, o el supuesto desconocimiento por el Banco del contrato de compraventa son cuestiones que puedan afectar al comprador, cuya obligación al respecto se limita a cumplir con el calendario de pagos estipulado en el contrato, siendo el promotor y, en su caso, la entidad bancaria, los obligados al cumplimiento.

Se adjunta copia de la sentencia.

Burgos 29-7-11

LEGAL NEWS / NOVEDADES LEGISLATIVAS

2011-11-03T07:06:00.000-07:00

NEWS TO SPEAD UP EVICTIONS

From now on the tenant has just 10 days to be oppositeto the eviction claim. Unless the tenant alleges that rents are not due, arealready paid, or pays them within the 10 days, the eviction order will beenforced by the Court without trial.

NUEVAS MEDIDAS PARA AGILIZAR EL DESAHUCIO

El inquilino solo dispone de diez dias paraoponerse a la demanda de desahucio alegando el pago de las rentas. Si no seopone o no paga en el plazo de 10 dias, se ejecutará la orden de desahucio sinni tan siquiera celebrar el juicio.

GM LEGAL EXPERTS WON CASE / CASO GANADO POR GM LEGAL EXPERTS

2011-11-03T06:58:00.000-07:00

ANOTHER BANK GUARANTEE FOR THE HERRADA DEL TOLLO'S DEVELOPMENT "SANTA ANTA DEL MONTE", ENFORCED AGAINST BANCO PASTOR

Another customer from our Law Firm, purchaser in the Herrada del Tollo's development "Santa Ana del Monte", gets a favourable judgement from the Court to enforce a bank guarantee against Banco Pastor, which covered the deposits paid to the builder plus the legal interest, despite he just hold a COPY because the bank rejected to give him the original. The First Instance Court number 23 from Valencia has just rejected the bank's opposition to our enforcement claim and sentenced that bank guarantees' copies are enforceable, specially if the purchasers does not hold the original because of the bank, and the authenticity of the guarantee wans't questioned by the bank in the process.

OTRA COPIA DE AVAL BANCARIO DE LA PROMOCIÓN DE HERRADA DEL TOLLO "SANTA ANA DEL MONTE" EJECUTADA CONTRA EL BANCO PASTOR

Otro cliente de nuestro despacho, comprador en la promoción de Herrada del Tollo Santa Ana del Monte, consigue que el Juzgado ejecute un aval bancario del Banco Pastor en garantía de las cantidades anticipadas a cuenta del precio, incrementadas con el interés legal devengado desde su pago, a pesar de que el Banco solo le había entregado una copia y se negaba a hacerle entrega del original. El Juzgado de Primera Instancia nº 53 de Valencia ha desestimado la oposicion de la entidad bancaria a la demanda ejecutiva interpuesta por el despacho, y ha confirmado que las copias de avales bancarios constituidos con sujeción a la Ley 57/1968 tienen fuerza ejecutiva (como una sentencia) a pesar de no disponer el ejecutante del original, siempre que esta circunstancia sea debida a la negativa de la entidad avalista de entregarselo y ésta no haya impugnado la autenticidad de la copia.

GM LEGAL EXPERTS WON CASE / CASO GANADO POR GM LEGAL EXPERTS

2011-10-19T14:44:00.000-07:00

SOLERA EL TRAMPOLINSENTENCED TO REFUND DEPOSITS PAID TO TRAMPOLÍNHILLS GOLF RESORT SL, AS THEY ARE BOTH MEMBERS OF AGROUP OF COMPANIES

The Murcia Magistrates'Court has accepted the appeal brought by GM LEGAL EXPERTS on behalf severalTrampolin Hills' purchasers, and has sentenced Solera El Trampolin to pay,jointly with Trampolin, the deposits to these purchasers, even for those whosedeposits were not guaranteed by Solera on the contract. This way, thesepurchasers are registered as creditors not only in Trampolin Meeting ofCreditors, but also in Solera's

SOLERA ELTRAMPOLIN CONDENADA A DEVOLVER DEPOSITOS A COMPRADORES DE TRAMPOLIN HILLS GOLFRESORT SL POR EXISTIR GRUPO EMPRESARIAL

La Audiencia Provincial de Murcia ha estimado elRecurso presentado por GM LEGAL EXPERTS en representación de varios compradoresde Trampolin Hills Golf Resort, y ha declarado a Solera El Trampolinresponsable solidario de las cantidades entregadas a cuenta del precio por loscompradores a TRampolin, incluso cuando Solera no figuraba como avalista en loscontratos. De esta forma, el crédito que los compradores tienen contraTrampolin Hills también será reconocido en el concurso de Solera El Trampolin

APMurcia - 21-07-11

GM LEGAL EXPERTS NEWS / NOTICIAS DE GM LEGAL EXPERTS

2011-10-19T09:36:00.000-07:00

GM LEGAL EXPERTS HAS BROUGH A CLASS ACTION AGAINST LA CAIXA FOR THE DEPOSITS PAID TO TRAMPOLIN HILLS

The First Instance Court nº 38 from Barcelona hasaccepted for consideration the class action against La Caixa filed by GM LEGALEXPERTS on behalf 40 Trampolin Hills purchasers who are claiming the refund oftheir deposits under the provisions of the Generic Guarantee signed by La Caixawith Trampolin Hills.

DEMANDACOLECTIVA PRESENTADA POR GM LEGAL EXPERTS CONTRA LA CAIXA POR LOS DEPOSITOS ANTICIPADOS A TRAMPOLIN HILLS

El Juzgado de Primera Instancia nº 38 deBarcelona ha admitido a trámite la demanda colectiva contra La Caixa (ahoraCaixabank) interpuesta por GM LEGAL EXPERTS en representación de 40 compradoresde Trampolin que reclaman la devolución de las cantidades anticipadas a cuentadel precio con fundamento en las pólizas de contragarantía (línea de avales)suscritas por la Caixa con Trampolin.

GM LEGAL EXPERTS NEWS / NOTICIAS DE GM LEGAL EXPERTS

2011-07-21T05:21:00.000-07:00

GENERIC GUARANTEE FOR 3 MOLINOS RESORT UNDERCOVERED

Banco Santander signed with 3 Molinos a Generic Guarantee in which the Bank commited to provide individual guarantees to the purchasers, and even a few purchasers got an individual guarantee, but those purchasers who don't hold an individual guarantee are entitled now to claim to the Bank the refund of the deposit, plus legal interest, under the provisions of the generic guarantee.

LA PÓLIZA DE AFIANZAMIENTO DE LA PROMOCIÓN 3 MOLINOS RESORT AL DESCUBIERTO

El Banco Santander firmó con la promotora 3 Molinos una línea de afianzamiento en la que el Banco se compromete a avalar las cantidades anticipadas por los compradores, si bien sólo algunos obtuvieron el aval individual. Pero en base a esta póliza de afianzamiento, cualquier comprador puede reclamar al Banco la devolución de las cantidades entregadas al promotor, incrementadas con el interés legal.

GM LEGAL EXPERTS NEWS / NOTICIAS DE GM LEGAL EXPERTS

2011-07-21T05:17:00.000-07:00

DEPOSITS PAID BY PURCHASERS OF THE DEVELOPMENT CASTALLA INTERNATIONAL, COVERED BY A BANESTO'S GENERIC GUARANTEE

The office of Banesto Bank from Orihuela signed with Castalla International (San Antonio Group) a Generic Guarantee in which the Bank committed to provide individual guarantees to the purchasers. So any purchaser whose property is not being completed in time is entitled now to claim for the refund of his deposit plus legal interest to the Bank, even without holding an individual bank guarantee.

LAS CANTIDADES ANTICIPADAS POR COMPRADORES DE LA PROMOCIÓN CASTALLA INTERNACIONAL, GARANTIZADAS POR UNA PÓLIZA DE AFIANZAMIENTO SUSCRITA CON BANESTO.

La oficina de Banesto de Orihuela suscribió con Castalla Internacional (grupo San Antonio) una línea de avales en la que asumían el compromiso de garantizar la devolución de los depósitos a los compradores mediante la entrega de aval bancario. Consecuentemente, cualquier comprador cuya propiedad no haya sido construida o entregada en el tiempo pactado en el contrato está facultado para reclamar a Banesto la devolución de su depósito, incrementado con el interés legal, incluso sin ser poseedor de un aval individual.

GM LEGAL EXPERTS NEWS / NOTICIAS DE GM LEGAL EXPERTS

2011-07-21T05:13:00.000-07:00

BANCAJA TO REFUND DEPOSITS PAID BY THE BUYERS OF AUGIMAR FOR THE DEVELOPMENTS TORRESBLANCAS, FORUM Y BARLOVENTO IN CASTELLON

Bancaja signed with Augimar a Generic Guarantee in which the Bank committed to provide an individual guarantee to every purchaser of the developments Torresblancas, Forum and Barlovento. So any buyer who bought there that hasn't be built or completed by the time agreed on the purchase contract is entitled to claim the refund of the deposit plus legal interest to Bancaja, even without holding an individual bank guarantee.

BANCAJA OBLIGADA A RESPONDER DE LOS DEPÓSITOS PAGADOS POR LOS COMPRADORES DE AUGIMAR EN LAS PROMOCIONES TORRESBLANCAS, FORUM Y BARLOVENTO EN CASTELLON.

Bancaja suscribió con la promotora Augimar una línea de avales en la que el Banco se comprometía a garantizar la devolución de las cantidades anticipadas por los compradores de las promociones Torresblancas, Forum y Barlovento. Consecuentemente, cualquier comprador de estas promociones cuya vivienda no se haya construido o no le haya sido entregada en el plazo acordado en el contrato está facultado para reclamar al Banco la devolución de su depósito incrementado con el interés legal.

2011-06-13T07:14:00.000-07:00

NEW RULING SENTENCING BANKS TO PROVIDE INDIVIDUAL GUARANTEES TO PURCHASERS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF A GENERIC GUARANTEE

New ruling from a Spanish Magistrates' Court (Burgos) sentencing Banks to provide to the purchaser an Individual Bank Guarantee under the provisions of a Generic Guarantee. The Court understands that the lack of payment of the deposits into the "special account" and the expiration date of the generic guarantee are clauses not enforceable against the purchasers, as long as they were not involved in the negotiation and their rights can't be waived (art 7, 57/68 Act) Details of the sentence as follow:

Court: Audiencia Provincial de Burgos

Recurso 75/2011

Resolucion 141/2011

Date: 3 May 2011

NUEVA SENTENCIA CONDENADO A LOS BANCOS A ENTREGAR AVALES INDIVIDUALES A LOS COMPRADORES EN VIRTUD DE UNA PÓLIZA DE AFIANZAMIENTO SUSCRITA CON EL PROMOTOR.

Nueva sentencia del la Audiencia Provincial de Burgos condenando al Banco a entregar al comprador un aval individual en virtud de la póliza de afianzamiento suscrita con el promotor. El Tribunal entiende que la falta de ingreso de la cantidad en una cuenta "especial" y la fecha de vencimiento de la póliza de afianzamiento no son oponibles a los compradores por cuanto que no intervinieron en su negociación y sus derechos son irrenunciables (art. 7, Ley 57/68). Copia de la sentencia a continuación:

SENTENCE

GM LEGAL EXPERTS NEWS / NOTICIAS DE GM LEGAL EXPERTS

2011-05-16T04:31:00.000-07:00

LA CAIXA, VERY LIKELY TO REFUND DEPOSITS TO TRAMPOLIN HILLS' BUYERS

La Caixa signed with Trampolin Hills a Generic Guarantee with Trampolin Hills, in which, on the one hand, La Caixa committed to provide guarantees to Trampolin's buyers and, on the other hand, Trampolin agreed to pay some interest and commissions for every guarantee made.

There are several Magistrate's court sentences which rule that a generic guarantee covers the deposit paid by every purchaser, no matter in which account it was paid, because it is not a buyer duty to make sure that deposit is paid into an special account. It is a developers' obligation, and the Bank who signed with the builder the generic guarantee must control any funds paid by buyers to the builder and make sure the builder provides a guarantee to all of them.

In this particular case, La Caixa can't excuse their liability alleging that they weren't aware about the existance of an account in Cajamar in which some buyers were paying deposits, because they provided guarantees to purchasers whose deposit was paid into the non especial account (ending 632) or even into Cajamar's account (ending 197). So la Caixa is liable pursuant to the doctrine of estoppel and under the provision of the Law 57/68.

ES MUY PROBABLE QUE LA CAIXA TENGA QUE DEVOLVER A LOS COMPRADORES DE TRAMPOLIN HILLS LAS CANTIDADES QUE ANTICIPARON A CUENTA DEL PRECIO DE SUS VIVIENDAS

La Caixa suscribió con Trampolín Hills varias pólizas de contragarantía, en las que asumía garantizar la devolución de las cantidades anticipadas por los compradores, comprometiéndose Trampolin a su vez a pagar intereses y comisiones por cada aval emitido.

Varias sentencias de Audiencias Provinciales han declarado ya que las pólizas de contragarantía dan cobertura a los depósitos pagados por la totalidad de los compradores de una promoción, sin importar en que cuenta se ingresaron, porque la obligación de ingreso en una cuenta especial no corresponde a los compradores, sino al promotor, y el Banco que ha firmado con éste la póliza tiene una obligación de controlar el destino de esos fondos y asegurarse de que el promotor entrega un aval individual a cada uno de ellos.

En este caso en particular, la Caixa no puede eludir su responsabilidad alegando que no tenían conocimiento de que algunos promotores ingresaban sus anticipos en una cuenta abierta en Cajamar, dado que entregaron avales tanto a compradores cuyos depósitos se pagaron, bien en la cuenta corriente ordinaria abierta en la Caixa (la terminada en 632), bien en la cuenta corriente ordinaria abierta en Cajamar (terminada en 197). De esta forma, la responsabilidad de la Caixa viene determinada no sólo por la Ley 57/1968, sino también por la doctrina de los actos propios.

FOR FIRST TIME, CLASS APPEAL CLAIMING AGAINST TERRAZAS DE LA TORRE CONTRACTS' NULLITY TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE SPANISH HIGH COURT

2011-05-03T02:07:00.000-07:00

After a long road, and joining their forces, a group of Terrazas de la Torre's purchasers, represented by GM LEGAL EXPERTS, have taken the contracts' nullity case away from Murcia Magistrates' Court and their appeal is going to be considered by the Spanish High Court in Madrid. This is a big achievement, because to reach the High Court isn't easy: the amount claimed must be superior to € 150,000 and amounts from different petitioners can't be summed unless the cause of the action (I mean, the main grounds of the case) is iqual or similar for all of them.

From the very begining GM LEGAL EXPERTS prepared the case being focussed on the High Court appeal, as long as the precedents from Murcia Magistrates' Court were just supportive with Polaris (against the criteria of most of the Magistrates' Court for similar cases). And we are now proud to say that our clients have a real chance to get their deposits back.

If the High Court (Tribunal Supremo) accepts the class appeal, the sentence from the Murcia Mafistrates' Court which confirmed the legallity of the Polaris' contracts will be overturned, and a new ruling will be issued confirming the contracts' nullity and sentencing Polaris to refund deposits plus legal interest to those purchasers. The buyers not only will be entitled to execute the new ruling against Polaris, but also to enforce their Bank Guarantees.

NEW DETAILS OF THE GENERIC BANK GUARANTEE FOR SANTA ANA BUYERS RELEASED

2011-05-03T01:44:00.000-07:00

Over the Easter's break some buyers have posted me information that their former solicitors got from San Jose, but it was not considered relevant. And some new interesting details about the generic guarantees have been released.

1.- The SGR generic guarantee was signed before August 2005 (before contracts with buyers were singed). So SGR excuse can't be that they did not provide guarantees for deposits paid before they signed the generic policy with San Jose & Herrada.

2.- € 1,500,000 from the 6,5 millions maximum amount covered by SGR have not been used yet (learnt from a representative of San Jose over the phone).

3.- BBVA and CAM Bank also singed with San Jose and Herrada generic guarantees. BBVA provided individual guarantees to buyers of Herrada who paid on the account shown on purchase contracts (01822980330201522159). This probably means that this is a special account, so Bank shouldn't have allow the developer to withdraw funds for purposes different than building, and should have issued the bank guarantee for every buyer.

I am sure that the Preliminary Enquire will release more interesting details.

MORE GOOD NEWS TODAY FOR HDT BUYERS

2011-04-06T02:42:00.000-07:00

I have just found out that Banco Pastor also signed a generic guarantee with Herrada del Tollo, so Banco Pastor is also liable. I still don’t know which the conditions & terms of the generic guarantee are, but I am sure that they will be similar to the one signed with San Jose Inversiones (no mention to the resort or properties covered by the guarantee, and with a "limit" amount).

This means that the low cost class action will be brought against both, SGR & Banco Pastor. Previously, a Preliminary Enquire will be filed to request through the Court the original, or the authoirzed copies, of the generic guarantee.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

WHAT'S A GENERIC BANK GUARANTEE AND HOW AFFECTS TO THE DEPOSITS PAID TO HDT?

2011-04-06T02:33:00.000-07:00

A generic bank guarantee is an agreement signed between the Bank and the Developer, in which the Bank agrees to deliver bank guarantees for the deposits paid to the builder, and the developer accepts to refund the Bank the amounts covered by the guarantees if he breaches the contracts. The generic guarantee can specify which development (or phases of a development)are covered, or even settle a limit for the amount of deposits covered. So basically is a document where the Bank commits to give a bank guarantee for every deposit paid to the developer by buyers. This means that no individual guarantees are given unless a generic guarantees has been previously signed between the builder and the Bank.

It seems that the generic guarantees signed between HDT and SGR doesn’t include any reference about which developments are covered, the guarantee is extended to any deposit pay for any resort. You have to bear in mind that SGR provided guarantees for several buyers of HDT in Santa Ana, whose contracts were exactly like yours and paid to the same BBVA account, under the provisions of the generic guarantee. So there is one thing we can assure: the generic guarantee covers the resort Santa Ana del Monte, because individual guarantees wouldn’t have been given to buyers otherwise.

The generic guarantee made by SGR settles a maximum amount limit, 65 millions of euros, and when they get opposite to my claim they will probably allege that the maximum amount has already been reached, so they are no longer liable. My opinion is that the “amount limit” is against the provision of the 57/68 Act. SGR is a financial entity, but they just provide financing and not banking services (accounts, etc). So the fact that the deposits were not credited in a SGR’s account is not relevant, because SGR does not provide banking services. Therefore, SGR and DHT did not follow any criteria to decide which deposits paid for Santa Ana were guaranteed, and which weren’t. It was just an arbitrary decision. Consequently, SGR’s liability could be claimed, as long as the art. 1^st of the 57/68 Act states that bank guarantees must be delivered to every buyer of an off plan development and the bank must control if guarantees are given to buyers, and the art. 7^th states that the rights established by the law can’t be waived. If their excuse is that the deposits were not paid to them because they don’t provide banking services, they should have established additional control systems to make sure that every buyer got an individual guarantee.

Obviously, the first step would be to file a Preliminary Enquiry to get full copy of the generic guarantee: the Court requests to the Bank the original document or an authorized copy, and if the Bank doesn't provide it, the Court could order a search to find it, or even it won't authorize the Bank to use the clauses of the document that could be negative for us in a later proceeding.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

CONFIRMED: BUYERS' DEPOSITS FOR HERRADA DEL TOLLO, SAN JOSE INVERSIONES Y PROYECTOS URBANÍSTICOS AND INVERSOL GRUPO URBANÍSTICO ARE COVERED BY A GENERIC GUARANTEE POLICY

2011-03-31T04:59:00.000-07:00

I am really happy today, because I can confirm to buyers of "Herrada del Tollo SL", "San Jose Inversiones y Proyectos Urbanísticos", and "Inversol Grupo Urbanistico" that their deposits are covered by generic guarantees.

Yesterday, a Eye on Spain forum member posted me some paperwork he got from his agent, because he wan't sure about how important they could be. I was really astonished when I saw them, because they were:

- a certificate from SGR about the existence of a generic bank guarantee for Herrada del Tollo.The certificate states that the guarantee is not made to cover just particular developments or properties, and settles a maximum amount as a limit (6,5 millions euros).

- A copy of the first pages of three Generic Guarantees contract signed between Banco Pastor & San Jose Inversiones y Proyectos Urbanísticos (in one of them is also included Inversol Grupo Urbanístico). On the contracts there is not mention to which developments are covered by the guarantee, and settle a maximum amount as a limit (26 millions of euros!).

As posted previously, I had knowledge of the existence of a generic guarantee agreed between SGR and San Jose Inversiones, and I was sure that there was another for Herrada del Tollo, because I have represented clients from HDT who enforced individual bank guarantees issued by SGR, and no individual guarantee is made by a Bank if there is not a previous agreement signed with the builder (Generic Guarantee, called "Póliza de Contragarantía" or "Póliza de Contraaval" in Spanish). But now I can confirm that the generic policy for HDT exists and, in addition, I can report everybody that the generic policy issued by SGR for San Jose is not the only one which covers the buyers' deposits, because there is a "massive" policy from Banco Pastor as well.

The above means that any deposit paid to Herrada del Tollo, San Jose or Inversol is covered by a generic guarantee, because the amount limit doesn't apply to the buyer, as long as the art. 7th of the 57/68 Act states that the rights ruled by that law cannot be waived. As the generic policies don't mention which particular developments are covered, the decision about which deposits did get an individual guarantee, and which ones didn't, was taken by SGR-BANCO PASTOR and HDT, SAN JOSE OR INVERSOL arbitrarily, without buyers' knowledge, so the negative consequences of an agreement in which the buyers weren't involved must not be suffered by then.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

BANK GUARANTEE COVERS LEGAL INTEREST, WHICH CANNOT BE WAVED

2011-03-30T02:58:00.000-07:00

Many buyers from San Jose and Herrada del Tollo who got their deposits covered by a Guarantee from SGR accepted to recover the principal and sing a relinquishment agreement for the legal interest.

The art. 7th of the 57/68 Act establishes that the rights that the law establishes for the buyers cannot be WAVED. In addition, the artícle 1st states that the developer must give to the buyer a bank guarantee which covers principal plus LEGAL INTEREST.

Therefore, the right to get the legal interest paid is ruled by the law, so it cannot be waved. This means that any relinquishment document is against the law and void.

Should you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

SGR TO REFUND DEPOSITS FOR BUYERS OF SAN JOSE INVERSIONES

2011-03-28T08:10:00.000-07:00

Finally we have had access to extremely relevant information about “San Jose Inversiones y Proyectos Urbanísticos”, which was being covered up to now.

San Jose and the Financing Entity SOCIEDAD DE GARANTIA RECIPROCA (SGR) signed a “generic” Bank Guarantee policy, with no specifications about for which resort was released the guarantee. In fact SGR issued bank guarantees not only for buyers of the development “El Pinet”, but also for buyers of “Playa Golf”. This means that SGR and the builder decided arbitrarily which deposits were covered and which weren’t.

The existence of this “generic” policy entitles any buyer who bought in one of the “San Jose Inversiones y Proyectos Urbanísticos” to claim SGR liability, even if the individual Bank Guarantee wasn’t given to him/her, pursuant to the article 1.2 of the Act 57/1968.

San Jose’s Meeting of Creditors is almost complete, because the Agreement with the creditors was recently approved. But this is not an obstacle for the buyers to bring an action against SGR and claim for the refund of their deposits. You can find further information about the grounds of the case on this blog (post banks’ liability to refund deposits to buyers).

RESORT TRES MOLINOS CALLED FOR MEETING OF CREDITORS

2011-03-22T03:37:00.000-07:00

Last January Resort Tres Molinos S.L., was called for Meeting of Creditors, leaving many purchasers who never got their bank guarantee really upset about their deposits.

Fortunately the Meeting of Creditors is not the only chance that buyers have to get deposits refunded. As I explained on previous posts, the Article 1 of the 57/1968 Spanish Act states that funds paid in advance by purchasers must be credited into a Special Account held at a Bank or Savings Bank. The Special Account must be separate from any other account held by the developer and must only contain funds deposited for the construction of dwellings. It is the responsibility of the Bank or Savings Bank to ensure that the Special Account is opened and must either issue the aforementioned Bank Guarantee themselves.

So Bank liability can be claimed as long as there are evidences that Bank was aware that the account was held by a builder and the money credited into it came from buyers.

In the "Resort Tres Molinos" funds were transferred into a builder's account openned in Banco Santander, who issued Bank Guarantees for many of them.

An individual Bank Guarantee is the consequence of a previous agreement between the builder and the Bank, which it is usually called "General Bank Guarantee policy". This general policy rules which properties' deposits are covered by the guarantee (one phase, the whole resort...) and the commissions that the builder must pay to the Bank for every individual bank guarantee.

Therefore, the grounds upon Bank Santander may be claimed liable, are:

- The Bank issued individuals guarantees for many purchasers, so this means that they agree with the builder to guarantee properties' deposits and, consequently, they have knowledge that "Resort Tres Molinos SL" was a builder company. This conclusion is additionaly supported by the "General Bank Guarantee" the builder and the Bank signed, which could extends the Bank's Liability to the whole resort.

- The Bank never requested to the builder information about the purpose of the money withdrawed from the account (never made sure that it was expended for building issues).

- Most of the purchase contracts stated that any deposit paid into the Bank Santander's account will be guaranteed.

- The Bank Santander was supossed to be the Bank providing financing to the development and arranging the builder's mortgage.

Should you require further information about this particular matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at info@gmlegalexperts.com.

CHANCES OF THE TRAMPOLIN HILLS' AFFECTED PURCHASERS

2011-03-18T05:06:00.000-07:00

When the Meeting of Creditors of Trampolin Hills was called, many purchasers felt that their chances to get their dreamed property, or their deposits back, were spoiled.

But a new door is being opened by the Spanish Courts: Banks who collected the purchasers deposits can be claimed responsible, as long as they allowed Trampolin to withdraw funds from the account for different purposes than building, no matter whether the account was called "current" or "special".

In this case, Banks who collected funds (La Caixa, Cajamar) can't claim for their lack of knowledgment about the business activity of Trampolin Hills and the origin and purpose of the funds paid into accounts, because General Bank Guarantees policies to cover part of the purchasers' deposits were issued by them, and they, in agreement with the developer, decided which ones were covered by the guarantees and which ones were unsafe.

GM LEGAL EXPERTS is preparing the case against both entities, to claim them responsible under the provisions of the 57/1968 Act. You can get further information about the legal grounds of the case on our previous post "Banks' liability to refund deposits to purchasers".

Should you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact us on info@gmlegalexperts.com

SOLERA EL TRAMPOLIN 'S MEETING OF CREDITORS

2011-03-18T04:06:00.000-07:00

Later last year the Mercantile Court nº 2 of Murcia called the meeting of creditors of another company of "Grupo Trampolin", SOLERA EL TRAMPOLIN SL. Despite the meeting has been declared "voluntary" by the Court, our Firm is claiming that it should be considered "necesary", as long as our call's petition on behalf several creditors was filed several months before than the company's petition.

If our claim is sustained, and the meeting is turn into "necesary", the creditors who filed the petition will get 25% on their credits guaranteed against the Bankruptcy estate. Obviously, the trustees in Bankruptcy are opposite to our petition (the more credits guaranteed against the Bankruptcy estate, the less they have available for their fees).

Right now, we are waiting for the Trustee's report about Solera El Trampolin's financing position.

In addition, many purchasers are preparing a case against CAM Bank, under the provisions of the 57/1968 Act (please check our post about Banks' liability to refund deposits to purchasers).

Should you require further information about the meeting of creditors, or the claim which is being prepared, please do not hesitate to contact us (info@gmlegalexperts.com).

NEW RULING WHICH SENTECES THE ANNULMENT OF MINIMUM INTEREST RATE CLAUSES FROM MORTGAGES

2011-03-18T03:43:00.000-07:00

Later last year the Court of Seville sentenced for the first time the annulment of minimum interest rate clauses (MIRC) included by several Banks on the mortgages' deeds (BBVA, Caja de Ahorros de Galicia, Cajamar y Cajamar Caja Rural).

Just a few weeks ago we were reported that the greatest class action against MIRC from mortgages was provisionally admited by the Mercantile Court from Seville.

Today a new ruling about the minimum interest clauses has been released. The decision comes this time from the Leon's Mercantile Court, and basically accepts the grounds of the previous sentences: the MIRC are out of step with the maximum interest rate clauses, which could be hardly undertaken by customers and are unconnected to the reality.

The consequences of the annulment are that the parties get restored to their original positions, so any extra interest charged by the Banks pursuant to those "tricky" clauses must be refunded to customers.

Several customers associations have reported that about 4 million Banks' customers are affected by minimum interest rates clauses. We would advise anyone affected to join any of the ongoing actions or bring a new one, and take advantage of this legal trend. My Firm ist currently representing a large group of customers who are claiming for the annulment of the MIRC established on their mortgages' deeds, and we would be please to guide you and advise you throughout the legal process.

BANK GUARANTEES ENFORCEMENT

2011-03-17T18:04:00.000-07:00

Over the last few years Magistrates' Courts have ruled about different issues related with the bank guarantees enforcement.

Some of the most relevant issues about this matter are:

Bank guarantees copies can be enforced as long as the Bank doesn't provide evidences of falsehood. This is a widespread opinion.
Expiration dates on bank guarantees are against the law. Bank guarantees just expire when the property is delivered to buyer in time or the habitation's certificate is obtained.
For some magistrates' courts, the cancellation of the purchase contract is not a previous requirement to enforce bank guarantees. This is not an unanimous opinion.
Bank Guarantees can be enforced for the total deposit paid by the purchaser, even if the amount covered is lower, as long as all the money was credited into the same builder's account. This is not an unanimous opinion.
Bank Guarantees include the interest repayment, so the interest amount can't be reduced or removed pursuant to the guarantee's wording.

As bank guarantees can be enforced where the Bank owns assets, it is advisable to check the precedents from the Magistrates' Court and play safe.

INTEREST RATE SWAP AGREEMENTS' ANNULMENT

2011-03-17T15:30:00.000-07:00

An interest rate swap contract is an agreement in which one party (customer) agrees to pay a fixed interest rate in return for receiving an adjustable rate from another party (Bank).

During the key years of the hausing bubble, a large number of Banks' customers were led to sign swap contracts under the belief that they were getting an insurance to cover the increase of the interest rate.

But the mortgage rates' descent shown them that they couldn't take advantage of that descent because the swap applied and Bank charged them the difference between the fixed rate established on the contract and the applicable rate.

Over the last few months several courts have sentenced the nullity of swap agreements. The grounds for annulment are patent defects in the way that consent to the swap contract was given. In the cases sentenced, customers were not experienced in financial products, and Banks couldn't provide evidences that the proper advice about the agreement and required information were given to them.

The consequence of the annulment is that the parties are restored to their original positions, which in this case means that the Bank must refund the client any money charged pursuant to the swap agreement, plus legal interest.

BANKS' LIABILITY TO REFUND DEPOSITS TO PURCHASERS

2011-03-17T14:05:00.001-07:00

The Article 1 of the 57/1968 Spanish Act states that any developer of homes must issue at no cost to the Purchaser a Bank Guarantee or a Certificate of Insurance for ALL deposit payments plus legal interest. The Bank Guarantee may be executed by the purchaser if the construction does not commence or complete for any reason by the agreed deadline.

The article also states that funds paid in advance by purchasers must be credited into a Special Account held at a Bank or Savings Bank. The Special Account must be separate from any other account held by the developer and must only contain funds deposited for the construction of dwellings. It is the responsibility of the Bank or Savings Bank to ensure that the Special Account is opened and must either issue the aforementioned Bank Guarantee themselves.

Last year the Court of First Instance number 54 from Madrid sentenced a Spanish Bank (La Caixa) to refund deposits to the purchaser in a case where funds were credited in an ordinary or "current" account and the developer failed in his obligations (property were not built by the time stated on contract and deposits weren't refunded).

The Judge sentenced that, given the bank´s involvement in lending the funds, they clearly knew that they were to be used to purchase a property in a development. The Judge also stated that the type of bank account used is only an accessory matter that, in this case, it could not be in the detriment of the buyer. Finally, the Judge indicated that La Caixa should have ensured that the bank account complied with the provisions of the 57/1968 Act.

This is not the first sentence about this matter, but shows an important trend in Spanish Courts to give legal protection to buyers.