The court of instruction number 3 of Torrent (Valencia) has canceled the granting of four mortgage loans that formalized “with usury” a lender signature to apply “leonine conditions” to a self-employed worker “taking advantage of the distressing situation of need for money” He had not to be seized by the company and that included a purchase option on his house, in which he lived with his wife and two minor children, without his knowledge.
This ruling, against which it is possible to appeal, has been won by the legal office of the Valencian Association of Consumers and Users through civil proceedings, after initiating a criminal proceeding that ended up being filed against this lending company, based in the province of Valencia, which It offered money to those people whose debtor situation they knew through the announcements of foreclosures or auctions of their assets, such as, for example, non-payments to Social Security, and visited them to offer them “easy money” with which to settle their debts, according to says in a statement.
In this case it was a man who had economic problems of his company in the cold sector and was “beset by debts,” as stated in the lawsuit, which relates that one day appeared by his company “a certain Vicente” telling him that he had learned that he needed money and that if he had property of his property he could loan him between “12 and 15,000 euros through a mortgage loan”.
Thus, a first loan was constituted that in the nominal figured to be 18,030 euros, although the only amount actually delivered to the plaintiffs was 12,000 euros that they charged by means of a nominative check. In addition, the plaintiffs, “imbued with their urgent need for money, their blind trust, and their lack of knowledge” did not understand “what they were signing, including default interests at 29 percent per annum” nor did the other deed they signed on the same day and at the same notary, a purchase option of their own home, in favor of the merchant “of which nobody had warned them”.
Thus, the complaint alleges that, unable to meet the payment, Mr. Vicente returned and he was granted up to three more loans under the same conditions. However, the amounts between the loaned and what they actually delivered differed. In the first case, of 10,760 euros that he finally borrowed, they only kept 5,999 euros, which they “also destined to pay debts”. The third was signed for 16,500 euros and the fourth and last for 30,000 euros of which again the plaintiffs claim “not having received anything.”
When the man received compensation in 2008 for a traffic accident suffered and wanted to settle his debt with the defendant, which in his opinion should not amount to only 17,000 euros, plus interest accrued exclusively on that amount that was actually borrowed, as well as the expenses of his position in the successive operations, he found “the unpleasant surprise” that the defendant settled the debt at 136,000 euros, as stated in the lawsuit, which requested the cancellation of these loans.
In this regard, the judge recalls that the Consumer Law considers null and void abusive clauses such as those that impose a disproportionately high penalty, in case of non-compliance, “something in which the moratorium interest agreed upon in the loans” of this assumption, ” 29% annual, notoriously abusive and disproportionate interest given the circumstances “.
This indicates that in this case has been established “a very high penalty of 29% per year for non-compliance, knowing the provider that the accrual of arrears almost certainly not an eventuality, but a certainty, which will come to fatten the debt of an insolvent borrower, which, although apparently a paradox, will be in the best interest of the lender “to whom” it is convenient that the debt of the former be geometrically increased, since the sights are set from the beginning, in the mortgaged property “.
Thus, he notes that these mortgage loans, “otherwise usurious, closed the circle of such a lucrative business, with two deeds of purchase options of the same mortgaged property, arranged on the same date and note that those of the mortgage loans first and a quarter”.
The magistrate confirms that “there was not the slightest interest, therefore, in the actors, in linking to the deed of purchase of their mortgaged property” and maintains that the case reveals the “ignorance, ignorance, and the fact that docilely they signed, how much was put to the signature. ” “So the defendant prevailed, of a distressing situation concurrent in the plaintiffs, so that they subscribed both the mortgage loans and the simultaneous deeds of purchase option,” the ruling indicates.
The judge explains that the illegality comes from the fact that the ordinary interests, which in turn later served to accrue new interest (ordinary, and at the time moratorium) “were calculated on a certain set of unreasonable amounts to accrue, for a motive or other of the exposed ones, they were not really loaned amounts, never they were given to the borrowers “.
For all these reasons, it partially estimates the claim and declares the nullity of the four mortgage loans arranged between the parties, with their corresponding and respective mortgages that were levied on the property owned by the actors.