it Is common in over 90% aspiring to acquire a property through a contract of mutual guarantee of the mortgage, the credit institutions (banks) have developed prior to the documents that the eager purchaser will have to sign to be of a decent home and decent without taking into account neither the notary fees or the payment for the development of the contract, the duties and taxes that will pay for the formalisation of the document that will make them “owners”, regardless of the conditions and terms as well as the unfair terms that are normally contained in those acts, bilateral and are held as debtors with large disadvantages.
The past month of may 2013, the Spanish Court determined, in the judgment of the dessert appealed by the dealer, that the clauses which were unfair and lacking in transparency were overturned, setting at that time that these (clauses) had to leave to be cashed.
last Thursday, December 22, 7 years after the Supreme Court determined, against all odds, that the judgment was primal I would have to go further and demanded that the judges, the retroactive application total for servicers to recover from the financial institutions entire the money covered improperly considered the clauses (soil) are of a nature advantageous and unfair to the mortgagor.
The failure so declare these contracts, it is not automatic, nor have effects erga homes, which in reality does not represent a big problem given that immediately appeared a number of lawyers samaritans offered to all those who have not claimed the invalidity of those provisions of nature, “abusive” to manage the process and application of the procedures necessary to obtain the respective declaration, and consequently the return of the sums paid in excess.
it Is considered, according to the analysts that the return retroactive payments made improperly, and because of the clauses soils will be around twenty to thirty thousand euros, that will be seven hundred and ten thousand mexican pesos, a sum not inconsiderable.
Taking into account the above and the avalanche of lawsuits that will be filed at the beginning of 2017, many of the lending institutions that held mortgage contracts for the acquisition of property have ceased to apply the terms soil and their mood has changed in a radical way in front of his debtor, who try to convince for the subscription of “agreements” which guarantee them the abstention to initiate the claim for the improper payment for many years to change suppress those obligations that home was the debtor, and carry out a deferment on your debt, you certainly will be considerably reduced. This is a ploy of abusive nature that if you opt out shall take effect on a provisional basis, taking into account that with the advice of an attorney conscious and primarily ethical, not only be able to claim in court the annulment of unfair clauses of origin without the covenant by reason of the judgment (2016 were signed between the mortgagor and the bank), considered to b e a waiver of the right of the particular and a new attitude to the abuse of the banking system.
The newspaper El País considers that the judgment has logic and that the return of banking to its customers on the occasion of the call clauses soil in the mortgages and not only, as established by the Supreme Court, the interest collected abusively from the may 9, 2013 date on which they were declared null and void amen of the judgment of the court of justice of the European Union, released on the 21st of December this year, it is based on an argument difficult to rebut in terms of strict justice: you must reset the economic situation of the client before paying the contractual terms and conditions that the courts consider to be non-transparent and unfair. Express to the court the existence of other criteria such as the impact of the returns on the accounts of the results of the banks, an approximate 4 thousand 200 million euros, according to data from the Bank of Spain.
What is certain is that the judgment today firm has a legal value of the first order not only for the return of money collected illegally, if not by who imposed the pre-eminence of the rights of the client (consumers, ultimately) on the criterion of not damaging the balance sheets of banks. The terms soil were unfair already knew, because so ruled the Supreme Court. What was at stake is the clarification of whether the protected legal property must be the respect to the customers or it must be reconciled with the safeguarding of the banking market.
Those affected will have to decide whether to proceed to an individual claim, or collective, always looking for a consultancy with proven experience that there are from 2009, be very careful in the countless pages of lawyers that offer their services free of charge and with small letters emulate the dealer with unfair terms: “In case you have favorable rulings, this office will be paid 20% of what is recoverable”.
The interesting thing about this delivery is that in not a few occasions, many of my colleagues, applicants and the one that this writes, we have called on those unfair terms of that in not a few occasions it is worth the dealer taking advantage of the need that the consumer has to purchase a home making them sign without explanation minimum the notary with them sempiternamente working together of clauses that are abusive that have to be reviewed and that with the implementation of fundamental and human rights that allow the courts in judicial matters, to carry out a weighting back to the interpretation according to the Letter of Querétaro to consider the legality of the mortgage contracts given up in advance, is there anything more abusive than that?, where the mortgagor has only two options, pay the full amount of the credit or surrender the premises. Here is where we turn to find the administration of justice against an unjust law.
I Wish you, and the defendants on the part of the banking and credit institutions for mortgage loans to analyze the existence of the contracts of their clients and they, in turn, to wonder if in reality their contracts are provided with unfair terms in their prejudice. If so, remember that, our illustrious Ministers of the Court are prone to the enforcement of resolutions of this draft that, while not mandatory much have of guidance. Don’t you feel?
mezavcm.abogados@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment