The financial entities that defend the legitimacy of their ground clauses already have at hand the legal arguments with which to try to convince the justice. A few weeks after announcing the meaning of its ruling, the Supreme Court has made public the ruling in which , for the first time, endorses the validity of a mortgage land clause.

It is a mortgage condition of Caja Rural de Teruel, in which the Supreme Court considers proven that “the borrower was aware of the existence and scope of the litigious ground clause, even stating that it was negotiated individually.”

A fundamental quality of this individual case, unlike the collective causes in which the Supreme Court has canceled out by opaque the floors applied by other banks, is that it was proved that there was express negotiation on this clause as the client requested to lower it to equalize a offer of the competition.
With this ruling, the bank sees open the door to winning the individual battles by ground clauses that are presented to the courts if it is able to demonstrate, providing emails or other evidence, that explained the condition to their client or even reached negotiate it.

A victory for the sector

Javier Izquierdo and Julio Pernas, the attorneys of the Gómez-Acebo & Pombo firm that have obtained the favorable ruling of the entity, point out that in this case “documentary transparency was solidly supported by the pre-contractual documents signed by the bank” and that “the The relevant evidence to practice in the proceeding was not limited to the documentary, but also included the questioning of the director of the office and the authorizing Notary. ”
“The Supreme Court has insisted again and again that what was relevant to solve these cases was the quantity and quality of pre-contractual information provided by the financial institution to its client during the negotiation,” Pernas and Izquierdo recall.

A precedent for the rest of the entities

In the judgment known today, the Supreme Court establishes that “the judgment on the transparency of the clause does not have to deal exclusively with the document in which it is inserted or with the related documents, such as the previous binding offer, but can be taken into consideration other means “, which opens the door for entities to show documentary evidence that although the mortgage contract did not highlight the clause, the entity did expressly notify the client.

“These affirmations of the Supreme Court”, advance the lawyers of Gómez-Acebo & Pombo, “will have a lot of repercussion in the defense of other credit entities before individual actions claiming the nullity of the ground clause, because the evidence of the questioning of the Notary , to which the Supreme Court expressly alludes, as well as the testimony of the office manager, will be key in these future cases. “

Fuente: cincodias.com