Spain's "Terrible And Inhumane" Situation Prompts End To Evictions

Tyler Durden's picture

With Spanish unemployment at record levels over 26% (and youth unemployment over 50%), even the bailout-avoiding prime minister is now recognizing the "terrible things and inhumane situations" that many real people are dealing with. To wit, a 53-year-old woman died after she threw herself from a window of her apartment when representatives of Spanish bank La Caixa arrived with locksmiths to evict her yesterday morning. The suicide (following another last month in Granada) has prompted Rajoy to temporarily halt evictions of the most vulnerable families as the government devises measures to help people stay in their homes. And yet, we are told again and again by Juncker, Barroso, van Rompuy et. al that the corner has been turned... we suspect not!


Via Bloomberg:

Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy will temporarily halt evictions of the most vulnerable families as the government devises measures to help people stay in their homes after a woman killed herself in Baracaldo.


The Spanish people are experiencing “terrible things and inhumane situations,” the premier said at an election rally in Lerida, Catalonia last night. The government “will defend the most vulnerable families affected by the evictions and act with seriousness, sensitivity and great humanity,” he said.


Amaya Egana Chopitea, 53, threw herself from the window of her apartment when representatives of Spanish bank La Caixa arrived with locksmiths to evict her yesterday morning, El Mundo reported. Egana and her husband’s mortgage debt of 164,000 euros ($208,640) rose to 213,000 euros because of charges and interest payments, while their home had been auctioned for 190,000 euros, the newspaper said.


Rajoy is searching for a formula that can help families that have fallen behind on mortgage payments without increasing the strain on lenders trying to clean up about 180 billion euros of bad real estate assets, the legacy of a 10-year building boom. Banco Popular Espanol SA (POP) today offered shareholders the chance to buy new stock at a 32 percent discount as it tries to plug a 3.2 billion-euro capital deficit.


Record Unemployment


The banking sector’s problems are already complicating Rajoy’s efforts to narrow Spain’s budget deficit and get the economy moving again. Unemployment reached a record 26 percent in September and the European Commission last week said Rajoy is set to miss his budget goals for the next three years.


The premier yesterday said he wants to agree on a plan with the opposition Socialist Party that will encourage banks to renegotiate loans and find ways for families to stay in their homes, according to the e-mailed text of his remarks.


“It’s a difficult issue but I hope that soon we will be able to give the Spanish people some good news,” he said.


Egana, a former city councilor, worked as a human resources director for the public bus company in the northern region of Vizcaya and her husband, Jose Manuel Asensio, had recently found work after a period of unemployment, El Mundo said. Asensio didn’t know the family was due to be evicted, the newspaper said.


A spokesman for La Caixa, who asked not to be identified in line with company policy, declined to comment on the eviction.


A man in the southern city of Granada killed himself last month as he faced the loss of his home, according to press reports.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
ForTheWorld's picture

What's to say the insurance company would pay the claim (even if they determined it was legitimate)?

Stuntgirl's picture

Dont get me started on the insurance.

Upon getting a mortgage, you are forced by the bank to buy insurance for the property, FROM THEM (as brokers), FOR THE VALUATION amount on the property.

This is illegal in spanish insurance law, you can never insure the land of a property, so the insurer will most likely pay up, but only for the rebuilding costs.


You are 200,000 in debt.

Insurer pays 70,000 rebuilding costs, which would be fair and it would allow you to rebuild if the house were effectively yours.

The bank collects the payment, but never rebuilds. You are homeless and still 130,000 in debt minus the land value which the bank will sell to itself, obviously not at initial valuation.

Sweet deal.

phat ho's picture

oh the humanity

ebworthen's picture

New war crimes trials needed.

Lloyd Blankfein should be implicated in this Woman's death.

Financial crimes are crimes against humanity.  Just because they wear a suit and wield a ledger and lawyers doesn't mean they aren't in uniform using weapons against Women and Children and Families.

toomanyfakeconservatives's picture

I agree, banksters with pens are not much different than muggers holding a gun to one's head.

AC_Doctor's picture

The EU is a joke.  The US is not the punchline, but another joke that will follow in the footsteps of the EU joke soon.

Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

This joke isn't funny.  I want my money back.

Zero Govt's picture

Que. How many Euro politicians does it take to change a lightbulb?


Ans. Europe doesn't 'fix' problems they make problems and then do half-a-job (Govt the world over)

It's a trick question, sorry, as they replaced a working lightbulb with an 'eco-lightbulb' which is multiple times more poisonous to the environment and provides half the light ...when it warms up in 2 months time

No Joke

Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

Instead of people saying the government should give them things, why don't the people take the government out of the picture?

machinegear's picture

Our future liberators still have something to lose. We, still have something to lose.

Miss Expectations's picture

Get the Economy Moving Again!

Should I print up bumper stickers?

fiddy pence haff pound's picture

i heard Mitt Romney closed 25 US factories, sent the jobs to China, and made 100+ million from the

carmageddon bailout. YOu can't do that too many times before American's start committing suicide.

Of course, they do it with guns ablazing.

Divine Wind's picture



I would love to know of a REAL, workable solution, particularly with publicly traded companies.

The investors (you, me, our parents, pension finds, etc...) expect, at a minimum, a preservation of invested dollars. If the company is unable to compete in the marketplace using domestic labor and material, or is so heavily taxed/regulated/encumbered that those profits are chewed up, it has two choices:

1. Move operations

2. Close

No one will invest their money knowing they will loose it, even if that loss is considered patriotic, humanitarian or 'taking one for the team'.

Not me. I suspect you are the same.

If one management team steadfast refuses to move operations to maximize investor return, they are simply replaced by the BOD.

Yes, America has many many problems. But the free market is the free market. We have spent decades spreading the concept around the world and working full boar on opening new markets for our products. Now those new markets are catching up and providing brisk competition.

Adapt, Improvise, Overcome.


AmCockerSpaniel's picture

>>>> I would love to know of a REAL, workable solution <<<<  Well you asked for it!  Repeal the "free" trade" (it's not free, and nothing is ever free).  America first. With out that the 0.1% will bury the 99%.

Divine Wind's picture




What you are asking is for the government to prohibit U.S. companies from selling their products in foreign markets, and barring foreign manufacturers from selling their products in the U.S..

This would never work. That new iPhone in your jacket pocket would cost a few grand.

If there is a buck to be made, the business will go to the company that produces the best product at the lowest price.

If wages in the U.S. preclude being competitive, there are two choices:

1. Move operations

2. Close

Adapt. Improvise. Overcome.


AmCockerSpaniel's picture

I think you are going to the extreme here. It is possible, we had tariffs & taxes up until the first BUSH/ Clinton did away with them. Tariffs & taxes are set to protect ones markets, and not to close them. What we have now is just the opposite (wide open borders). I don't have an iphone or an i-anything. Our biggest export item is agriculture, and most other counties block us from selling in their countries. We have 47.1 million people on SNAPS now. How much higher does that have to go before we do what ever to get the lost jobs back?  Of course business will go to the company that produces the best product at the lower cost, and that kills the jobs here.  If wages in the U.S. preclude being competitive, there are two choices: NO there are three choices. Your two are the problem, and it's easy to see the results. If nothing is done we will be driven to lower and lower standard of living. Down to below those who are now exporting to us have (it is all about cost). Only the 0.1% will be the winners, and the rest (my & your grand kids) will be the BIG BIG BIG losers.

MillionDollarBoner_'s picture

U really, really are a cocker spaniel? Or u are just shittin' me?

My cocker spaniel (Kevin is his name) has news for you. Tariffs & taxes against imports result in tariffs and taxes against your exports. It tends to be on a tit-for-tat basis and pretty much zero sum in the end so its both pointless and destructive.

Kevin says, hows about - a bit rad, he admits, but then he's just a spaniel - hows about people simply start living within their means? Trouble is, he reckons, the USA don't produce nish but wants to consume the world plus police it at the same time. Good luck with that, he reckons, because (I missed the next bit cos he was licking his balls at the time and it was all a bit muffled and I didn't want to interrupt his flow).

Anyway, essentially he's a free market libertarian and the reckons your idea sucks. But then, like he says, what does he know - he's only a spaniel ;o)

AmCockerSpaniel's picture

My Cocker Spaniel is not the smartest dog, but she (Lady) is a great companion (30 lb lap dog). Living within ones means is being done by most. It's the "means" part that is shrinking. When the income shrinks to zero, or close to it that they op to feed them selves and buy time on credit. The biggest point here is that America is a very large market unto it's self. Right now we export agriculture and planes. That's about it. So tariffs and taxes on our exports is not going to change the statuesque (we have very little), but it will change the statuesque on jobs here. Remember that this was the way it worked for decades until the greed of the one percent got it changed. They; The one percent wanted more and more. The biggest cost to them was labor. With "Free Trade" they could, and did, dump the American worker. Now all they do is sell here what is made for them over seas to us. Profits have never been so good (APPL), but now with so many out of work or under employed, the volume of sales is falling. They can't go back because their competition will not go with them. Remember it was when the first manufacturer out sourced that rest had no choice, but to follow or fold. Price sells, but the buyers need employment to buy. That 47.1 million on SNAPS said it all, and it keeps going up. As more and more people are being made redundant, and can only get part time low paying jobs, it's you job that is next.  The one percent could give a damn about the 99%, and they own the politicians/ rule makers. Take a look at the balance of payments for every month. We are bleeding, and bleeding very badly, and for a very log time. This must stop! All that said; Any one who has a Cocker Spaniel has to be a good person.

MillionDollarBoner_'s picture

"Any one who has a Cocker Spaniel has to be a good person."

Tru dat - Kevin is 15 and getting on a bit but I do love him and will miss him when he goes...

Totally agree with your synopsis on the US (and general Western World) situation and how you (we) arrived there. One factor you maybe missed though is the burden placed on US manufacturers by the State and their Union cronies. If it were not for the taxes, environmental rules, health and safety rules, mandatory healthcare contributions, financial reporting rules etc. US-based manufacturers would be a hell of a lot more competitive. This burden was a major contributor to the outsourcing movement - they have relocated production to lower tax, less environmentally conscious, less health and safety conscious locations where there was no mandatory healthcare requirement. The accountants they still need (unfortunately) but otherwise they can pollute and abuse as freely as they want.

So maybe there is an argument based on externalities I.e if you produce in a country which allows pollution of our shared planet and abuse of our fellow human beings, you have to pay a fine for that. Then its not a tariff/tax but a fine for immoral behaviour and who knows? - it might even encourage China, India et al to raise their standards and level the playing field. I can't see it happening soon but suspect it will be part of the ultimate solution way, way off in the future.

Meantime enjoy life and especially family and friends (including the shaggy kind !:O) 

SoCalBusted's picture


Nice try.  Why don't you mention the sheeple flocking to Wal-Mart to buy their made in China crap because it is a few pennies cheaper? - only to have the crap they just bought break before the credit card bill comes due.  Let's hear about the demand side fo the equation for a change.

AmCockerSpaniel's picture

On the demand side, we have little choice. It's China China China India et al, but not USA.

Zero Govt's picture

"..a 53-year-old woman died after she threw herself from a window of her apartment when representatives of Spanish bank La Caixa arrived with locksmiths to evict her..."

with 2 million un-sold/un-saleable properties on Spanish Banks books it's not like they needed to be in any hurry to get to 2,000,001 and get her out

unless a banker/employee covets her property

Stuntgirl's picture

You make a very good point.

The banks are not willing to negotiate terms, extensions, nothing.

Some are allowing the people to stay for roughly 50% of the mortgage payment value, (while they still lose the property and accrue further debt to the bank) but only when forced by court or very very active evictees. This monthly rent is roughly 80% of market rental price, in a paralysed rental market. Banks cannot effectively rent out all their empty property, so this seems like a good deal.

Why would they rather lock up the empty place?




Zero Govt's picture

Indeed, why would the Bank be in any hurry to add another vacant property to their thousands of others

Apart from my suggestion, that someone in the bank covets the property which 2 friends of mine experienced. One bank director had a neighbouring farm and coveted his farmland (tough, he repaid the loan and the bank lost both the farm and the facility/future biz, haha:). The other was utterly shafted by his bank who foreclosed, under-valued the property and flogged it off on the cheap to a 'freind' when he could have got 6 figures more for the premises

this deliberate under-valuing and flogged cheap left a balance which the bank then demanded my friend to make-up a (new) dispute that spent years in legal wrangles

The exact reverse of that is Banks over-valuations of mortgage/property values, in the UK at least, is a corrupt little circle as UK Banks appoint the valuers. So your mortgage is almost always a pumped-up figure. When the bank sees you in negative equity it doesn't blame itself for over-valuation, it blames you for the growing disparity between its over-valuation in a peak and the declining market value

it's in the banks interest (only) to over-value property as they want the largest figure to squeeze every penny/cent out of you 

Stuntgirl's picture

I'd think very very few cases in Spain are the coveting case you present...

In most cases, we are talking smallish flats in working class areas.

In Spain, the banks would ONLY accept their own valuation of the property, which was invariably massively pumped up.

Hence the argument of bank malpractice: If YOU, as a financial specialist, told me I, who provided full disclosure of my financials, could afford this property, as YOU valued it yourself, I, the non-financial specialist and the non-valuation specialist, cannot be held accountable for declining market value.

The rules currently in place for banking are unthinkable in any other profession:

"Haha! You did what the doctor told you to do and did not self-medicate! It is your fault if you suffer health consequences!"

"Haha! You lived in this house built by this contractor and did not check yourself that construction was properly done, it is your fault the roof dropped on you!"

Seriously, What??

I'm still iffy on why they prefer zero return to a rent income.


Zero Govt's picture

"unthinkable" indeed... and in 5 years time, maybe a bit more, we'll wonder what the f'n hell we were doing not only paying bank-credit-pumped sky-high prices for property but carrying the risk of a 30 year long mortgage hanging around our knecks too

the 30 year debt-slave, sorry 'mortgage' was an innovation of the meddling socialist US Rosevelt regime to 'help' people into houses and stabalise the property market ...bankers just love these socialist salesman selling their debt-slave-lifestyle dressed-up as community love-ins

AmCockerSpaniel's picture

These 30 year mortgages were a good thing until Wall Street corrupted the government, and had the fire wall between the S&L's and corp banks (Wall Street), that FDR put in, repealed (Clinton). We all know what that was all about now, but the government is still is owned by Wall Street. So little has changed. The government has a job to do, but it's who are they working for (not me). It's too bad the MSM is in on this (0.1%), and not doing their job to vet out the corruption in government. To make matters worse, the Supreme Court ruled that "corporations are the same as a human, and have the same rights". I have a very bad feeling about all of this.  

orangegeek's picture

Cntrl-P.  Fuck that's not working anymore!


Cntrl-Alt-Del.   Fuck that's not working anymore!


Robin, to the bat-mobile!!!

css1971's picture

And this is why it's bankers and politicians  that should be swinging from lamp posts in every town and city across the world.

Think of it as de-worming for humanity.

fukidontknow's picture

Bloomberg report "a woman killed herself in Baracaldo" what a crock! Banksters pushed her out that window.

eddiebe's picture

The 'inhumane situation' is all about the banksters getting control over everything and everyone. The fiat fractional banking scheme was implemented so the banksters can create money out of thin air that the people then borrow and work for for their whole lives to buy a house and make payments to the banksters. And don't think this wasn't all orchestrated. ( The maistro comes to mind).

 Then the banksters outsource jobs and technology and create a crisis so the people have to give the house back to the banksters that they then can sell again. If the banksters can't sell the homes to someone else to get them on the hook, they just go bankrupt and the government pays some of their bigger bankster buddies to take over theirs. Win win for them and lose lose for those that actually produce. 

 I think I'm in the wrong racket.

Joebloinvestor's picture

She should have demanded they produce the mortgage.


She should have rigged it where the building collapsed on top of everyone.

akak's picture

The EU reign in Spain will soon be mainly on the wane.

asierguti's picture

Well, I don't think that this dead can be attributable to unemployment, bankers or even central banks.


There is just something wrong about this story. She was a director at her company, and she had a good salary. Her husband also had an stable job, and moreover he didn't know anything about the eviction, the first news he had was when she commited suicide.


Even after the foreclosure, they had enough money to rent a flat and live OK.


There is something else we don't know about, but the only thing I can say is that this is not because unemployment.

Stuntgirl's picture

She was a human resources manager.

Her husband had been out of work until very recently, but his having work now does not mean they did not skip a payment for 3 months. Obviously this is a reverse of the typical case of a family's male earner pretending he still has work after being fired to his family.

After they foreclosure they still owed 214,000€ plus delay expenses (typically 20 to 30%).

The mean salary in Spain is 20,000€, and the median salary is 12,000€.

Exactly how do you pay off that debt and rent?

Although, probably, it was more about her having hidden the fact from her family and feeling unable to face them.

asierguti's picture

You are not evicted for missing a payment for 3 months recently.


She owed 164,323 euros for the mortgage, plus another 49,300 euros on delayed expenses, which bring us to around 214,000 euros. All this BEFORE the foreclosure.


Believe me, as an HR DIRECTOR, she was earning more than 20,000 euros, plus husband's salary. The outstanding debt would not be as high as 214,000, and they could somehow survive. If they can't rent, maybe they could move into some relative's flat.


Anyway, would anybody hide such debt and such problems from his/her spouse? Very strange...

MillionDollarBoner_'s picture

"She was a human resources manager."

Errr - am I the only one to feel a guilty satisfaction?

Does this make me evil ?!?

Atomizer's picture



Hollywood must claim financial distress. Taxpayer’s will bail out the motion picture industry. Hollywood will then remake’ My Fair Lady - The Rain In Spain’. This film will pigeon hole how a distressed Spain government has run out of new ideas. One lovely Sunday afternoon, the new angle is hatched.

The NYT will report movie as, ‘A Recreative, Spellbinding thriller’.



SoCalBusted's picture

Hardly /sarc.

The film industry in Southern California has succesfully lobbied for tax breaks because production if fleeing to lower cost places within the US and CA.  Meanwhile, we just voted for more tax increases.  I need to get the fuck out of here.

Atomizer's picture

I beg to differ. Type American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Along with bow & arrows, you'll find the motion picture bailout.

THE DORK OF CORK's picture

Houses have no productive value anyway..........


The need to evict people from these consumption sinks so as to preserve the illusion of value.


And thats it folks.#


House assets are claims on the remaining rump physical economy - they are not yield bearing when looked at from a holistic level.

MillionDollarBoner_'s picture

"a holistic"?

Shouldn't that be "an holistic"?

Jack Burton's picture

These are the same banks that this poor woman has been taxed to bailout! Never forget the trillions in public money ,or printed money that devalues wages, that has been poured into Europes banks to bail them out from their failed business models.

That's how it works, people are taxed to pay bankers for failure, then bankers kick the same taxpayer out of his/her home for failure to meet mortgage payments due to unemployment cuased by bankers financial engineering failures.

In a decent world, it would be taxpayers throwing bankers out of their penthouse flats ti their deaths. Ask yourself this, Who has gotten richer and richer as the economy collapses, and who has been screwed to the wall! Bankers and vulture capitalists get richer, workers and taxpayers get screwed to the wall.

Government works for the financial insitutions, bonuses are paid while the banks suck trillions in bailout cash! When does the REAL revolution get underway? With 50% youth unemployment? Man this can't last!

Kimo's picture

Had the banks had failed, instead of being bailout by taxes (provided by this poor deceased woman), creditors would have taken over, and the same troop of bean counters and locksmiths would have been knocking at her door.

Peter Pan's picture

My solution would have been for the banks to take a write off against their capital and for any further write offs to be against deposits. In lieu the depositors would have been given shares in the bank which at some time in the future could be redeemed in full or partial once profitability returned. In other words a debt for equity swap.

slackrabbit's picture

No Kino, because the banks would have been bankrupt in which case it would have gone to creditors who generally runa a public auction.

A public auction like they hold in the US, Uk etc, 'but i say generally' because now banks and hedge funds purchase them all at a discount.,,,heaven forbit we have Capitalism, thats like Terrorism in the twenty first century.




Kimo's picture

Coming right up! 1343 regulations on who may be evicted, and how.  Or not.

Peter Pan's picture

These politicians are fools. They clearly cannot tell the difference between turning the corner and going over the edge.


slackrabbit's picture

i would never go alone...or quietly.