mortgage multicurrency: New nullity in Barcelona
The Provincial Court of Barcelona has declared the partial annulment of the multicurrency terms of a mortgage loan sentence 19 January 2016.
Ms.. María Luisa contrató con su ex marido, un préstamo hipotecario multidivisa con el Banco Popular en abril de 2007, by 30.824.400 a counter value of yen 190.000 euros.
The Court of First Instance number 27 Barcelona dismissed the claim, considering the existence of lack of standing "ad causam" to sue only Dña. Maria Luisa and not intervene ex-husband.
The client, He appealed the judgment to the Provincial Court of Barcelona.
For the Board, tanto la actora como su ex cónyuge son deudores solidarios del préstamo. Y al existir dicha solidaridad, can not be upheld lack of passive legitimation welcomed by the Court of First Instance (regardless of housing with mortgage collateral undivided pro belongs to both). Conforme establece el artículo 1137 relative to 1141 and 1147 Civil Code, cualquiera de los deudores podrá ejercitar las acciones en relación al contrato que beneficien a todos los prestatarios. Y ello con absoluta independencia de la titularidad de la vivienda, that is a question that is irrelevant, because what the multicurrency mortgage is discussed. La Sra. María Luisa puede ejercitar las acciones en beneficio de ambos titulares del préstamo hipotecario (she and her ex-husband) because they signed jointly. Article 1143 the C.C. legitimizes any of the debtors to bring an action which seeks the annulment of the multicurrency clauses that hurt all borrowers.
As to the merits, the Chamber refers both to the Judgment of the Supreme Court 30 June 2015, como a la part TWENTY the 3 December 2015 and concludes that the mortgage multicurrency "It is not a derivative financial instrument does not constitute an investment service or activity and to that extent, It is not applicable to it own rules of derivative financial instruments and therefore the scope of the Securities Market Act, does not contain the "multicurrency loan" a derivative financial (….)”.
Now, this does not preclude assess whether there was an error in the consent, Banco Popular corresponding to the burden of proof to prove that gave borrowers a clear information, comprensible y adecuada sobre el funcionamiento y riesgos del préstamo hipotecario multidivisa.
And the question connected with control transparency in the general conditions of contract, applying jurisprudence relativa al mismo. For the Board, el clausulado “multidivisa” es una condición general de la contratación y los clientes son consumidores. La redacción no era clara ni comprensible para que pudiesen conocer la carga económica y jurídica del mecanismo multidivisa. Also, borrowers were draftsman and mechanic and had not hired before any similar financial product.
The clause that the Court considers key is indicating that "The replacement of the currency used will not, in any case the lifting of the loan amount, or risk reduction in force, except in case of repayment whatever the cause, including variation in the exchange rate ". However, moreover it indicated that "The replacement will affect the outstanding loan balance, so that at all times should be used and reflected in a single currency ".
The Chamber considers are evident "Darkness, ambigüedad y contradicción de la redacción”.
Uninformative product documentation or surrendered risks. And the notarial intervention (STS 8 September 2014) It does not guarantee the actual comprehensibility or control and compliance duty to provide a complete clear and adequate information on the operation of multicurrency mortgage loan. For Hearing:
"The lack of information provided by the defendant to the borrowers is glaring and evident in our case".
Ultimately, se estima la nulidad parcial del préstamo multidivisa, subsistiendo el contrato en euros y referenciado al euribor. The initial amount borrowed from 190.000 euros is deducted the amounts written off in its conversion to euros, taking as the reference rate established in writing.
Also, the multicurrency mortgage loan at issue contained a clause floor, which is also declared invalid.