Implicit financial derivative of BBVA declared null by the Supreme Court

derivado financiero

 El Tribunal Supremo declara la nulidad de un derivado financiero implícito de BBVA por error en el consentimiento

Consult your case now

 

The Supreme Court considers the nullity of the BBVA financial derivative contract, implicit in the mortgage loan, due to an error in the consent and condemns BBVA to indemnify the plaintiff.

The Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court gave judgment on 23 June 2020, with No Resolution 343/2020, estimating the appeal by D. Pedro Enrique and Dña. Graciela, declaring the nullity of the financial derivative contract implicit in the BBVA mortgage loan, as a consequence of the breach of the information duties provided in the pre-MiFID regulations.

Fact background,,es,Juan Alberto and Paulina filed suit against FTA,,es,Asset Securitization Fund,,es,requesting the declaration of nullity for abusive of the floor and ceiling clauses contained in the novation contract of the mortgage loan of,,es,with the corresponding refund of amounts unduly collected,,es,The Securitization Fund Management Company,,es,Beech,,es,acting on behalf of FTA, he responded to said claim alleging that he lacked passive legitimacy since the entity had no legal personality and that it constituted only a private and open fund and that therefore the passive legitimization corresponded to BBVA as successor of Catalunya Banc that was the Company fund constituent,,es

The 14 September 2007. D. Pedro Enrique and Dña. Graciela signed a mortgage loan agreement with BBVA. El cálculo de los intereses contenía un derivado financiero implícito.

The 12 April 2010, the first novation was signed, donde desaparecía el derivative financial, although it was not liquidated. A standard interest calculation system was established. The 14 June 2010, both parties left it without effect.

The 28 March 2011, the second novation was signed, with capital increase of the mortgage loan, liquidando el derivative financial, which cost D. Pedro Enrique and Dña. Graciela from 37.000 €.

D. Pedro Enrique and Dña. Graciela filed a lawsuit, requesting nulidad por error vicio en el consentimiento del derivado implícito que se incorporó al préstamo hipotecario.

Primera Instancia

The Court of First Instance No. 1 of El Puerto de Santa María handed down the 3 October 2016, estimating demand.

Acordó la nulidad del contrato de derivative financial añadido al contrato de préstamo hipotecario constituido el 14 September 2007 due to an error in the consent for not reporting its risks. Condemned BBVA to indemnify D. Pedro Enrique and Dña. Graciela for the damages caused by the financial derivative.

Provincial Court

An appeal was filed by BBVA.

Section 2 of the Cádiz Provincial Court ruled on 24 October 2017, estimating the appeal.

It revoked the sentence handed down in the first instance and acquitted BBVA of the sentence after considering that the action filed by the plaintiff had expired. He understood that, from the first novation, followed by an exchange of communications between the parties, the plaintiffs were already aware of the risks of the derivative product.

In fact, the Section stated that "From reading that communication, (…) the borrowers were perfectly aware of the legal and economic significance of the derivative product signed in the year 2007, of the possible vices that weighed on that business, of the economic burden that for them implied, and even of the actions that could assist them against the bank for their irregular proceeding, that (…) already then they came to be demanded. ”

Supreme Court

D. Pedro Enrique and Dña. Graciela filed an appeal, alegando infracción del art. 1301 CCivil y de la jurisprudencia que lo desarrolla

The appeal was estimated by the Chamber.

Tell what period of the article 1301 CCivil

Regarding the computation of the four-year term of the art. 1301 CCivil, the dies a quo according to the jurisprudence brought up by the Chamber, “For the purposes of exercising the nullity action by mistake, the consummation of the swap contracts must be understood to have occurred at the time of exhaustion, of the termination of the contract.

(…)

En los contratos de swaps ocobertura de hipotecano hay consumación del contrato hasta que no se produce el agotamiento o la extinción de la relación contractual, for being then when the performance of the benefits by both parties takes place and the effective production of the economic consequences of the contract. This is due to the fact that in these contracts there are no fixed benefits, but variable settlements in favor of one or the other contractor at any time depending on the evolution of interest rates (…)”.

Therefore, the filed claim was filed within.

Nullity due to vice error in consent

when D. Pedro Enrique and Dña. Graciela contracted the mortgage loan, MiFID regulations did not yet exist, so the BBVA, se regía por la normativa pre-MiFID, who demanded that it was “It is necessary to prove that, based on the knowledge and experience of the borrowers, at the time of this contract, they explained how the derivative would work and the risks involved. ”

This accreditation did not appear in this case, as for the room, the cancellation and settlement of the cancellation fees agreed with BBVA, they did not suppose the confirmation of the swap contract.

el hecho de optar por la cancelación anticipada y de pactar con el banco el importe de la liquidación no supone una confirmación del contrato viciado por una causa de anulabilidad (error vicio).
Sí podría serlo una declaración de voluntad manifestada en la transacción. Namely, que hubiera formado parte de la transacción la renuncia al ejercicio de la acción de nulidad por error vicio.
(…)
“Client, al descubrir los riesgos derivados de la bajada drástica de los tipos de interés, lo que pretende es, first, “cortar la hemorragiaque supondrán las futuras liquidaciones y por ello se aviene, first, a la liquidación ligada a la cancelación que le ofrece el banco. But, logically, se reserva, sin necesidad de manifestarlo, la posibilidad de instar la nulidad del contrato cuya cancelación anticipada ha pactado con
the bank. La cancelación y la liquidación de los gastos de cancelación pactados con el banco (…) no supone la confirmación del contrato de swap”.

Conclusion

Compliant with pre-MiFID regulation, whoever markets the financial product must prove that, based on the knowledge and experiences of the other party, at the time of said contracting, se había explicado cómo funcionaría el derivado financiero, as well as the risks involved. If this is not proven, el contrato es anulable por error vicio en el consentimiento, como consecuencia del incumplimiento de los deberes de información.

Consult your case now

Leave a Reply

Language


Set as default language
 Edit Translation


Subscribe to receive a book PDF


Just for signing up receive via email the link to download the book "How to change lawyers" en format digital.
Sign up here

Sígueme en Twitter



Subscribe me

* This field is required