February 18, 2020

The court of First Instance nº 7 of the capital dictates sentence that also imposes the interests and the costs to the entity.

The litigation began on  2008, when the buyer  went to the urbanization, in Manilva, a place close to her work at the time, and found that the works were semi abandoned, drawing up notarial deed of their status.

By then the promoter had already breached its deadline and did not respond to its return requirements of what were all the savings of a life of work and sacrifice.

After a ruling against the developer, the financial burden of the urbanization prevented its execution, and the developer was not the owner of more assets.

It was in 2015 when the Ley  57 Lawyers office, coordinator of the SOS Housing platform (Free call to  900 64 92 90) addressed its claim to the bank, considered responsible for the repeated doctrine of the Supreme Court for the amounts anticipated by clients on housing in construction.

The sentence, notified yesterday, condemns the financial entity, together with legal interests and costs, for not considering that the delay in the claim was “unfair”, “after the purchasers have learned enough information to formulate their claim in terms of reasonable prosperability. ”