Bail Bond

I wrote an article in which I told you that I was going to have a trial and that I would comment on the sentence. I keep what I said.

A couple had signed an end-of-house rental agreement with their landlady. It was the reading of the counters on the date of the end of the lease. There were no flaws. A few days later the landlady returned a small part of the deposit.

They believed that he had not returned the amount they should charge. They called her to ask for the money and they sent her a burofax. It was useless. The amount they were owed was less than € 1000, but it was theirs. I tell you what I did.


I filed a payment process that did not allow me to process.

I filed a payment process that did not allow me to process.

The Auto 34/14 of the Court of First Instance 22 of Barcelona says that the payment is a declaratory process that aims to achieve the effectiveness of a credit right relating to a debt due, expired, liquid and due to be recorded in a document of Good legal appearance (like an invoice).

This liquidity situation does not occur when it is triggered based on a breach of contract, as in this case, in which the claim is based on non-compliance with the duty to return the bond.

There are two types of processes: the ordinary and the verbal. The latter is simpler. If the amount claimed is less than € 3,000, the assistance of a lawyer and solicitor is not mandatory.

Article 249.1.6º of the Law on Civil Procedure establishes that any matters relating to urban leases will be decided in ordinary proceedings, except claims for rent or amounts owed by the tenant or for eviction for non-payment or for the expiration of the term of the rental relationship. The legal claim for the bond must be made through a  Verbal judgment.


The judgment of the Provincial Court of Malaga

Provincial Court of Malaga

“Finally, the infringement of article 249.6 of the LEC is alleged, as the appellant understands that, due to having urged the termination of the contract and because it is a matter of urban leases, the present lawsuit had to be processed for the proceedings of the ordinary trial.

As for the need to have had to air the present trial for the procedures of the ordinary trial, the reason must be rejected, since, having resolved the lease at the request of the lessee, and with the tacit acceptance of the lessor, the process has been limited to a quantity claim, consisting in the return of the bond that, by law, corresponds to the lessee, without the defendant having opposed any claim that justifies the retention of the bond he has made, which on the other hand, and if there is any cause that justifies it, it should be articulated by means of a counterclaim, which, notwithstanding the diction of article 438.1, the second paragraph, of the LEC, could have been formulated in the present oral proceedings, limiting it to the origin or Inadmissibility of the claim made.

However, the appellant, adjusting too much to the letter of article 249.6 of the LEC, understands that we are in the presence of a matter that refers to an urban lease and that, therefore, had to be processed by the norms of the ordinary trial.

This Magistrate understands that, given the recognized contractual resolution, the present case only tangentially can be understood as a question related to the lease matter, since it is simple to carry out one of the effects of the terminated contractual resolution, consisting in the return of the bond, and given the amount of it, it is not considered fair or right to force the tenant to resort to a slower and more expensive trial, as is the ordinary. “

My clients got an absolutely favorable ruling. And they collected their money plus interest. The landlord’s defense did not justify the non-return of the deposit.