Real estate financing
Translation generated by AI. Access the original version
Restitution of amounts collected due to the application of abusive clauses eliminated by novation
The case deals with a mortgage loan in which a floor clause (a minimum interest rate of 3%) and a "ceiling" (15%) were applied. Two clients sued the bank requesting, among other things, the nullity of that clause, its removal from the contract, and the refund of all overpaid amounts due to its application from the first installment until its removal, as well as to redraw the amortization schedule and add interest.
In the first instance , the court understood that, even before the lawsuit was filed, the parties had signed a novation in which the floor clause was removed. Therefore, it considered that it was no longer necessary to "sentence" it made no sense to "condemn" to the bank to remove a clause that, in practice, was no longer in the contract. However, the court did condemn the bank to return the amounts overcharged since the signing of the loan until the date the floor clause was eliminated by that novation, with the corresponding legal interest (and, from the judgment, procedural interests).
The bank appealed, but the Provincial Court confirmed the judgment . Later, the banking institution went to the Supreme Court (SC) arguing basically that it could not be compelled to return money if the floor clause had not been expressly declared null in the judgment, and also that the transparency analysis had not been carried out correctly.
The SC dismisses the appeal. It explains that, even if the ruling did not formally declare nullity formal declaration of nullity clause was abusive due to lack of transparency , and therefore the refund was logical and evident. Furthermore, it is recalled that the bank also did not explain what specific information specific information gave to customers so they truly understood the economic and legal impact of the ground. Consequently, it sentence is upheld to return the overcharged amounts and the bank is ordered to pay the costs of the appeal in cassation.
If you are considering carrying out any type of operation or business that involves the formalization of a real estate credit contract, our professionals can advise you on the defense of your interestsRELATED CONTENT
-
Elevator maintenance
Nullity of duration clauses and excessive notice in successive contracts This case deals with a typical contract for “preventive maintenance” of elevators, which are not fulfilled in a single day, but are provided month by month (what is called in law a successive contract). A maintenance company sued a community of owners because it decided to terminate the contract before the agreed term expired. The company claimed two things, on one hand, that unpaid invoices were paid; and, on the other, compensation for “breaking” the contract early. The conflict revolved around two clauses of the contract where one set a duration of 3 years and the other required a notice of 180 days (six months) in advance if one wanted to terminate the contract. The community argued that these conditions were abusive in the case of a consumer (in this case, the community itself). In the first instance, the court ruled in favor of the company, ordering the community to pay both the compensation for early termination and the outstanding invoices (in addition to interest and costs). However, on appeal, the Provincial Court of Málaga changed the criterion, declaring the 3-year duration clause and the 180-day notice clause null and abusive. What is the practical consequence? If those clauses are invalid, the company cannot rely on them to demand a penalty or compensation for having terminated the contract early. Nevertheless, the community must pay what it actually owed, the outstanding invoices for services already rendered. The Supreme Court confirmed this outcome, the duration and notice clauses are considered null, no compensation is due for ending the contract early, and only unpaid invoices are owed.
-
Urban leases
Does a reversible work by the tenant give the owner the right to terminate the contract?
-
Urban Leases
This website uses both its own and third-party cookies to analyze our services and navigation on our website in order to improve its contents (analytical purposes: measure visits and sources of web traffic). The legal basis is the consent of the user, except in the case of basic cookies, which are essential to navigate this website.