The Provincial Court of Murcia has declared the nullity of the floor clause of a renegotiated mortgage some time after it was placed in a loan deed also condemning the defendant entity to return the amounts unduly received from the application of the floor clause until the date of its effective elimination.
The entity defended the validity of the aforementioned clause covered by the agreement between the parties of 2014. The aforementioned agreement by which the floor clause is eliminated, is an agreement proposed by the bank, and only appears signed by one of the borrowers. What the Bank maintained is that we are facing a transaction, not a mere novation, in order to avoid litigation between the parties.
The Judgment says that we are not facing this transaction, but rather a new agreement (expressly stated in the same), which does not imply any waiver to claim for the application of the null clauses. It is not valid to isolate expressions of the same, decontextualizing them, without taking into consideration its purpose, which was to end the floor clause, not to set the conditions in which a previous business was held several years before.
For the lawyer who has led the defense of consumers, Magdalena Rico Palao, these clauses of waiver to claim are mentions imposed by the bank , which consist of statements of knowledge that are revealed as formulas, empty of real content, as they are contradicted by the facts, are stereotyped mentions by who is obliged to give the information (the Bank), in which the consumer declares to have been adequately informed, which is objectively uncertain since there is no written information, nor who nor when that information was given.
Digital newspaper “Lawyerpress NEWS“.
Publication date: 21/09/2020
Tel. 900 69 65 25 – 968 79 33 80 – 678 20 30 80 (Magdalena Rico Palao)