Endometriosis Cancer More Condition_symptoms Robin Hood as we all pay.

about a month ago (although the press has learned today) Section II of the Provincial Court of Navarre issued a car in which, in short, has been to say that if you have a mortgage, not pay, the bank will, however, your house and auction that auction will not take off enough to pay what you owe, the bank can not go for the rest of your property to retrieve the remainder of the debt. Much progress has been anti happy with this. And it really is an aberration illegal, unlawful, unfair and, if consolidated, will hurt us all.

Let me summarize the facts for those who do not want to read the entire car. A couple asks a ^{71,000 (1)} credit euros BBVA and, in a certain time, stop paying dues. BBVA demand them and the judge sentences them to pay those same 71,000 ⁽²⁾ euros. They do not pay, the judge will take the house and ordered the auction, which is deserted. As it is empty, the floor BBVA wins ⁽³⁾ amounting to about 43,000 ⁽⁴⁾ €. But when the judge BBVA will continue to claim a lien on the couple's 28,000 ^{(5) EUR} left the judge refuses and says that the floor enough. Argued this decision by saying that asking more than worth floor is abuse of rights and also the floor, when given the pr & eacute; Stam, was priced at 75,000 euros, which is more than the principal and the bank has made even business.

course (and here and I walk away a little from the brief presentation of the facts), that is one of stupidity. First, if sentences for 71,000 and made a payment in the amount of 43,000 (ie, you give the floor to the bank saying it that) the fact is that 28,000 missing and must be payable continue execution. Ball point. If you had made the payment in euros by the 75,000 of assessed value maybe the matter would have a minimal logic, but you can notsay "OK, you owe it to 71,000 euros, there is a floor of 43,000 and not ask for more than 75,000 actually worth." Is an animal so big that I can not imagine a logical context to explain why give something in return for value of 43,000 to settle a debt of 71,000, or at least not without taking to the fore the effects of a physi , music and quantum multiplication of the loaves and fishes. But let's go. Besides

say this that I said, BBVA says to the judge that the floor is not worth 75,000 euros, hey, one thing is what is priced before the crisis and quite another to what is worth now. We've brought to auction for 43,000 euros and not nobody wanted, which means that their market value is actually lower the amount for which is awarded in lieu of payment. But is that. Also, here is an appraisal dated yesterday, Your Honor, that says, in effect, the floor is not worth 75,000 or wet dreams Pocero Paco. And the judge has to say no one cares, that was priced well, which has no evidence that the price has changed and now worth less ⁽⁶⁾ , that the auction is void and means nothing valuation date that it gets you now where the sun do not shine because it is not the appropriate procedural moment tocover (the English equivalent to "not be admitted as evidence.") So nothing, nothing, air that I have another case.

BBVA, I guess quite stunned by the apparent stupidity of the judge, appeals the decision, of course. And the District Court reads it and gives, in mid-December, the car that is news, rejecting the appeal, confirmed the decision of the magistrate, leaves BBVA with a building that just does not want covers half of what they owe without the possibility of seeing a penny more. Let me explain the consequences of self clearly: if the couple is they were millionaires and had hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash in a cuenta's own BBVA, BBVA could not touch them. Although the couple in question have to pay (I do not know if you have) do not have to . The bank eats the floor and point. Oh, and, above, to join the insult to injury just ordered to pay costs, forget me not.

The car in question has paragraphs that have no waste. After acknowledging that the claim that BBVA will pay what they owe " from the standpoint of formal and strict exercise of the right (Of course, from the point of view of strict exercise of law, nerd, you judge, not an arbiter of fairness, which tietions to do is apply the law, not what you please!) would not be an abuse of law ", which already by itself should be enough to overturn the judge's decision instance by destroying ratio decidendi is set to do a "minor consideration" which is to say that, after all, if the value of the floor has dropped is because of the banks that created the crisis, so if the BBVA will get hurt, because at the bottom right.

I'm serious.

" (...) while (...) the bank's performance meets the letter of the law and effectivetively entitled to apply what you requested, (...) it nevertheless continues to plant a thought (...) concerning why the appellant challenges the Order under appeal, arguing that realize the value of the property auctioned and awarded materially to the bank today has a real value less than that once you set the appraisal price (...). The basis of the statement that the property is auctioned today a lower real value is based on allegations as to the current market reality has led to the estate had no value at the time that was awarded ; as pricing, significant decreasel value that links the current economic crisis, which suffers not only this country but much of the global environment with which we interact. This being so, and ultimately the very important real economic crisis, which has even the farm that once priced in a given amount today would be valued at least can not ignore that this is also originally a precise cause and that there is another, and this Court does not say so, but has been declared by the President of the English Government (...), which mismanagement of the financial system that players are banksace.

this is not to say that the BANCO BILBAO VIZCAYA ARGENTARIA is causing the economic crisis (Well, thank goodness) , but can not ignore your bank condition and therefore an integral financial system, which as a whole and by the mismanagement of financial institutions that are (...) have led to an unprecedented economic crisis since the Great Depression of 1929 . "

He continued:

"is morally reprehensible alleged attempt to continue running the falling value of the property that served as a warranty & iacutee; to the loan, which had not been granted had not had sufficient value to secure the loan, which was set by the bank performing now, or at least accept, being that the loss of value is directly attributable to the economic crisis, resulting from the malpractice of the financial system, which is repeated, although not directly be attributed especially to BANCO BILBAO VIZCAYA ARGENTARIA, it does not cease to be a reality that is part of the protagonists of the financial system, and why it is especially painful, that the argument which justifies its claim, is based on circumstances as essentially vulgarisrmente is said to have met with considerable sensitivity and ruffled feathers. "

is, that while the request is fair and legally sound, the grant is not because I consider" morally reprehensible. " We not fuck with me.

I'm sure many of my readers more "liberal" (or more unrepentantly Communists, Hayles if any) are already thinking that we must build an altar to this gentleman (who, by Indeed, Jose Fco called Goyena, if you want to write to the Court) can stand up to a giant international bank as BBVA, rising to defend the hombre foot, has not only lost their homes but on top is threatened by an evil corporation that wants to garnish your shirt, blah, blah, blah, and is capable of acting with moral justice and breaking the rigid parameters of the law in terms of what is good and just and moral, more blah, blah, blah. Well, if you are of this opinion, let me promise that there is a world, no, an entire universe beyond your noses. I promise. If guiñáis eyes a little sure you see.

The mechanism that led to this room to make this car, is say, is fair and lawful, but not grant it ands "morally reprehensible " is horrible. We have judges to make what seems to them morally right, we've got to implement the Act, which is a reflection of what we think is morally right to us, the People . It is not tolerable for a judge to put their own principles to the law, you have to do is apply the law or, if that is truly impossible for his moral, quit the race or as little, refrain from proceeding. This "is legal, but I do what my conscience tells me" here you see very heroic and commendable, but the same mechanism that would allow, for example and aOther judges denied their rights to women or homosexuales. "Oh, yes, I know that this claim of sexual harassment at work is fair and legally sound, but I rejected because it is morally reprehensible for someone to go to the office and dressed, let alone "Oh, yes, I know that this adoption application is fair and legally sound, but I rejected because the applicants are fags and homosexuality is morally reprehensible in itself." In this direction can not be taken any step , among other things because I guarantee that there are many more judges who believe that homosexuality (eg) is morally reprehensible in itself that judges considern that as the crisis has caused banks deserve what happens to them. And they have many, many more looking forward to put people in the closet than have the other "to pay the banks."

But is that, apart from the economic point of view of law, this decision affects us all . As things stand now, if I ask for a loan to buy a property and then it drops in value the risk is mine, just as the gain is mine if it goes up in value. Therefore, among other things, what we think six or seven times before trapped for buying a flat. If this statement creates jurisprudencia the risk is transferred to the bank, found that if the lower floor value will not recover the borrowed (but if it goes up you do not see a cent more, of course). That means that the risk of the operation to the bank (which actually has no interest in the operation itself) increases. And this means that for a mathematically prove profitable bank making the loan will have to raise interest rates, or whether we are going to cost more than borrowing money goes to cost more than we give it, and we are going to be more expensive. All ,

And although for some types of collectivist mentality this tipor distribution of responsibility may be attractive (not mine, and or am of each suit that hold your candle) the fact is that what is provided is the worst abuses. If the auto create any real estate speculator case could go to a bank for a loan to buy property and speculate with them because he knows that business can only have two outcomes: (i) or the property goes up in value, and he wins, or (ii) the property loses value and then returns the property to the bank in payment of the loan, which he did not lose: lose the bank. And banks do not lose, but move your risk, we will go higher mortgage rates. On orfollowing words: we fund, and paying the property speculation that raise the price of the apartments that we can not buy ourselves .

I know it's very nice, and very excited to think that heroes are righteous in the world, trocar togas and swords layers of feathers and remove from the rich to give to the poor. But in reality it is not and the poor, or at least less poor as you and I always end up paying . We struggled a lot subject to state law, we can not forget it and throw it all away in an instant. And we have to have enough depth perspective and look to realize whatIt's what's behind the adventures of Zorro, and how for every pound that Robin Hood robbed the prince Juan raising taxes by two.

No, guys, no. This car is in the form at the bottom and the impact, horrible. And if someone wants to discuss it, here I am.

Greetings,

Arthegarn.______________
(1) To be accurate the first request a credit of 59,390 and then 11,865 more comprehensive, total € 71,255.
(2) Technically not the same, the sentence is € 71,024 of principal plus interest, costs and expenses. The fact that the conviction for such principal amount means that it ista people stopped paying the credit at once (only 231 euros amortized principal!), although this has not apparently come to the case.
(3) In fact here and the problems begin, because a bank does not want a building for nothing, what he wants is money to lend and invest, that is their business. And I say this but I am positive that some banks, driven by these performances and these payment in kind, have finished setting up their own property ( Nests BBVA, Altamira Santander ...) under the idea that they have lost, get what you can ...
(4) Just € 42,895.
(5) Exactly 28,129, 52 € 8438.86 principal plus interest, costs and expenses.
(6) No evidence of change in value of property in Spain it has since September 2008 on Mars, blindfolded, cotton in your ears and chanting "No Pasaran" loudly, I suppose.