Recently, in June 2016 we obtained a favourable resolution in favour of the customer in a foreclosure with costs to the bank. The case began in late October 2015 when the client received a notice from the court notifying him that in December 2015 would come to auction three buildings he owns (actually owned by the society in which he is a shareholder) because of a lawsuit filed against both, executing the individual and the legal person. Before the notification of the resolution that was put out to auction the property, the client had not received any previous one. Accordingly, the first thing we raised was the annulment of the proceedings due to the lack of prior notification, requesting the immediate suspension of the auction. In early December 2015 the court ordered suspension and ordered the handling of a separate suspension piece. In February 2016 the court agreed with us regarding the lack of notification and ordered the annulment of the proceedings backdating the proceedings at it beginning. In March 2016 we present the opposition to the execution (which could not be done in 2105 du to the lack of notification), raising a number of exceptions, including lack of legitimacy. In June 2016, the Court ruled that the execution should not go against the natural person client (to be continued only against the company) condemning the bank to pay the legal costs, who in turn would have two months to remedy defects in the demand for execution. At the time of writing this (June 2016) we are waiting for the bank to correct any deficiencies before continuing execution, which we hope to oppose successfully. The customer who was desperate in October 2015 thinking he would lose the property at auction in December 2016 (for which we know there were bidders) today breathes quiet and is on track to solve the problem and keep them.