The Court of Valencia has given the reason to a company that sued a bank for the abusive application of a floor clause in a mortgage loan. The Valencian judges allow with this ruling that the mercantile companies that signed mortgage loans with leonine conditions sue in the courts like the rest of the consumers. The firm that has won the case, Martín Queralt Abogados, has relied on a ruling issued by the Supreme Court on March 11. A court of First Instance of Llíria already declared the clause of a loan granted to a real estate company invalid in the summer.
The magistrates are positioning themselves in favor of businessmen and freelancers who sue financial institutions for the existence of abusive clauses. The Supreme Court ruling on which they are relying warns that it is insufficient for the clause to be clear, but it also requires that the mortgaged person have had knowledge of it.
Sources from the Martín Queralt Abogados law firm explain that the Ninth Section of the Valencia Court (specialized in floor clauses) has assumed the new criteria of the Supreme Court in a ruling issued on October 6 that analyzed the case of a Gandia pharmacist. The ruling declares the nullity of the floor clause in a loan granted by Bancofar (which later assigned the loan to Bankia). The decision of the Hearing, which revokes the decision of a court of First Instance, “opens the door for entrepreneurs and companies to claim from now on the nullity of the floor clauses with the same efficiency and in similar terms as they do private consumers “, emphasize from the firm. The case has been won by lawyer José García Roig.
The Valencia Court condemns the bank to reimburse the plaintiff “the amounts paid in excess for the application of the null clause linked to the agreed remuneration interest” and the payment of the costs. The lawyer José García Roig points out that “until now it seemed that the nullity of the floor clauses was reserved only for consumers, unlike companies and businessmen, who could not obtain the same judicial recognition. Now, the criterion of this judgment is applicable (in Valencia) to those cases in which the employer or the person in charge of the commercial company was not informed of the existence of a clause of this type in a loan that was formalized at variable interest . The lack of good faith and the unforeseen or surprising nature of the mortgage clause make it possible to declare it void also in the case of companies ”.
In the procedure of the Gandia pharmaceutical company, the sentence argues that it has not been proven that the businesswoman was informed of the inclusion of the floor clause in the mortgage contract. “Such action is not only surprising, but contrary to good faith,” the ruling collects. García Roig insists that from now on “if the bank did not inform the employer or the self-employed person about the floor clause, they have the right to claim.”