RECOVERY OF MONEY GIVEN TO ACCOUNT FOR THE PURCHASE OF A HOME. WHY DO JUDGES TEND TO RESOLVE CONTRACT NO SALE? WHY DO NOT HESITATE TO JUDGE WHEN BANKS EXECUTE AND DESTROYED THE LIVES OF PEOPLE? WHY BOTH INTERPRETATIONS OF THE LAW IS CONTRARY TO THE HOMEBUYER CITIZENS?
RECOVERY OF MONEY GIVEN TO ACCOUNT FOR THE PURCHASE OF A HOME
Although the Law 57/1968 of 27 July, regulating the perceptions of sums advanced by the construction and sale of homes, states that developers will be required to ensure safe and endorsement by the amounts paid by buyers and more to bring this law in full force that the delay in the onset or delivery of housing will be entitled to terminate the contract plus interest accrued since the payments were made, some courts do not want to follow this approach.
We are encountering many judges who do not give much importance to the delay in the delivery of housing. Nor give relevance to terminate a contract for breach of the promoter to ensure the amounts paid on account. The fact that the developer has not met its legal obligation to ensure the amounts paid on account by a bank guarantee or insurance is not proving relevant to judges.
Many homebuyers have found homeless and penniless. Homebuyers Martinsa Fadesa, even without collateral, are able to recover the money because the company is great. But homebuyers unsecured small developers they are losing everything.
And many developers smoothly risked failing to ensure the amounts paid on account without fear and did not seem to have too many opportunities for buyers to prosecute. Nor were concerned about not meeting the housing delivery since the price went up and it would be covered by some courts even though the delays were important.
When the judges reinterpret the law in a sense so different from what was written, though based on some provincial court ruling, they represent a loss incontestable rights for home buyers.
But the judges did not dare to reinterpret the Civil Procedure Act to prevent banks in the process foreclosures stay with auction houses in 50%. Nor does it prevent the bank can then continue to pursue other goods and wages of home buyer that purchased by mortgage banking. And once a home buyer auction is the same and will not recover for life. Discounted because the ridiculous amount obtained and also adding exorbitant interest and court costs that will be occurring in the process, the amount will always be unaffordable.
As in the previous judges and do not hesitate to favor the banks in a literal interpretation of the law but the law is inconsistent with the times, times that is leading many people to a modern form of “slavery” or of “social eviction” for the rest of their lives. And it matters little and go for several hundred thousand people in this situation. As legislators and judges allowed usury in the past but now allowed in for life, or what is the same, the eviction for life.
From these lines we demand that justice recover the sense of what the law says, in his interpretation more in line as written and defined, at which time it is consistent with the social reality that must be applied. As the article 3 of the Civil Code:
“1. The rules will be interpreted according to the sense of his words in relation to the context, historical background and legislative and social reality of time that must be applied, serving mainly to the spirit and purpose of those.
2. Equity must be weighed in applying the rules, although the decisions of the tribunals may only rely solely on it when the law expressly permits. “
Ultimately vindicate the common sense so well stated in Article 3 of the Civil Code.
Jes√ļs Mar√≠a ¬†Ruiz de Arriaga Rem√≠rez