Post by account_disabled on Feb 20, 2024 4:37:09 GMT -5
Cajamar must pay the 34,200 euros, plus interest accrued 16 years ago, that a buyer paid for a home that was never delivered, given that the developer entered bankruptcy. The Court of First Instance number 3 of Malaga has determined that the entity is responsible for dealing with that amount because it did not require the company to deposit the funds received, as an advance on the price of homes under construction, into a special and separate account that included the necessary guarantees .
The plaintiff paid 34,200 euros for an unbuilt home that he was going to use as his first residence . The promoter never delivered it and acknowledged the breach of its obligations. The plaintiff pointed out that the banking entity is responsible for admitting buyers' income into an account of the developer without requiring the developer to comply with its obligation to guarantee it. Cajamar, for its part, alleged that it did not know and could not know the nature and destination of the income made in its accounts.
Law 57/68 establishes that legal entities “that promote the construction of housing that intend to obtain payments of money from the assignees before starting construction Fax Lists or during it must guarantee” the return of the money in the event that it is not carried out. I finish it . Along these lines, the rule also states that these funds must be deposited in a special account, separated from any other type of funds belonging to the developer and which can only be used for services derived from the construction of the homes . To open these accounts, the bank, under its responsibility, will require the necessary guarantee.
The scope of the guarantees of this law extends to “the construction of housing that is not officially protected, intended for home or family residence, on a permanent basis or for seasonal, accidental or circumstantial residence. That is, the rule protects the consumer, even if he or she has not purchased the home with the intention of living in it permanently. The same does not happen with those that have been purchased for speculative purposes. In this sense, it was concluded that the plaintiff had “acquired the failed home for residential purposes, there being no evidence that the affected person was professionally engaged in real estate or intermediation activity or real estate investments and there was also no evidence that he was the owner of other real estate. ”. Furthermore, personal circumstances allowed us to conclude that the property was going to be used as a primary residence .
The Supreme Court has established in its doctrine that, in these cases, taking into account the second condition of article 1 of Law 57/1968, credit institutions that admit income from buyers into a promoter's account without requiring the opening of a special account and the corresponding guarantee will be liable to buyers for the total amounts advanced by the buyers and deposited into the account or accounts that the promoter has open in said entity. Thus, Cajamar "is not an entity separate from the relationship between buyer and developer-seller, but must actively collaborate with the latter in order to ensure that it complies with its legal obligations."
An official from the entity itself recognized that Cajamar financed the housing development to which the plaintiff's planned home belonged, and that he was aware of the activity of the development company that ended up going into bankruptcy, Danyser. “The set of circumstances expressed evidence that (…) Cajamar did know or was in a position to know that the remittances of bills came from the amounts advanced for the sale of properties under construction and appeared in the purchase and sale contract as the entity that would have signed also a line of guarantees in order to guarantee refunds of payments from buyers (...) and it is proven that the defendant did not require the developer to open a separate and duly guaranteed special account.
Regarding interest, they will be accrued from the date of each of the advances in 2007 (since payment was made in installments), until complete payment or satisfaction. The procedural costs are also imposed on the convicted party.
The plaintiff paid 34,200 euros for an unbuilt home that he was going to use as his first residence . The promoter never delivered it and acknowledged the breach of its obligations. The plaintiff pointed out that the banking entity is responsible for admitting buyers' income into an account of the developer without requiring the developer to comply with its obligation to guarantee it. Cajamar, for its part, alleged that it did not know and could not know the nature and destination of the income made in its accounts.
Law 57/68 establishes that legal entities “that promote the construction of housing that intend to obtain payments of money from the assignees before starting construction Fax Lists or during it must guarantee” the return of the money in the event that it is not carried out. I finish it . Along these lines, the rule also states that these funds must be deposited in a special account, separated from any other type of funds belonging to the developer and which can only be used for services derived from the construction of the homes . To open these accounts, the bank, under its responsibility, will require the necessary guarantee.
The scope of the guarantees of this law extends to “the construction of housing that is not officially protected, intended for home or family residence, on a permanent basis or for seasonal, accidental or circumstantial residence. That is, the rule protects the consumer, even if he or she has not purchased the home with the intention of living in it permanently. The same does not happen with those that have been purchased for speculative purposes. In this sense, it was concluded that the plaintiff had “acquired the failed home for residential purposes, there being no evidence that the affected person was professionally engaged in real estate or intermediation activity or real estate investments and there was also no evidence that he was the owner of other real estate. ”. Furthermore, personal circumstances allowed us to conclude that the property was going to be used as a primary residence .
The Supreme Court has established in its doctrine that, in these cases, taking into account the second condition of article 1 of Law 57/1968, credit institutions that admit income from buyers into a promoter's account without requiring the opening of a special account and the corresponding guarantee will be liable to buyers for the total amounts advanced by the buyers and deposited into the account or accounts that the promoter has open in said entity. Thus, Cajamar "is not an entity separate from the relationship between buyer and developer-seller, but must actively collaborate with the latter in order to ensure that it complies with its legal obligations."
An official from the entity itself recognized that Cajamar financed the housing development to which the plaintiff's planned home belonged, and that he was aware of the activity of the development company that ended up going into bankruptcy, Danyser. “The set of circumstances expressed evidence that (…) Cajamar did know or was in a position to know that the remittances of bills came from the amounts advanced for the sale of properties under construction and appeared in the purchase and sale contract as the entity that would have signed also a line of guarantees in order to guarantee refunds of payments from buyers (...) and it is proven that the defendant did not require the developer to open a separate and duly guaranteed special account.
Regarding interest, they will be accrued from the date of each of the advances in 2007 (since payment was made in installments), until complete payment or satisfaction. The procedural costs are also imposed on the convicted party.