The Supreme Court endorses a floor clause for having mediated a financial adv...

nijhumnishita03

https://onlineThe First Chamber of the Supreme Court has declared that an additional explanation of the economic burden implied by a floor clause is unnecessary when its interlocutor, a financial intermediary hired by the borrowers , intervenes in the negotiation and contracting of a loan with a mortgage guarantee. Transparency control must be understood to have been passed The ruling, dated February 2, 2022, points out that the wording of the disputed clause is “clear and simple”, and presumes its adequate understanding “by the person with specialized knowledge hired by the borrowers to act in their place.

” We put in context The borrowers filed a lawsuit exercising an individual action for annulment of general contracting conditions against Banco Popular requesting, among other things, due to lack of transparency, the Phone Number Data declaration of nullity of the floor clause of the loan contract with mortgage guarantee signed in March of 2007, maintaining its validity without the application of those 3% land limits and the maximum rate of 9.06%. First instance The Court of First Instance No. 3 of Ponteareas (Pontevedra) considered that the disputed clause suffered from a lack of transparency and upheld the claim , imposing the costs on the defendant entity. Second instance After the representation of Banco Popular filed an appeal, the Provincial Court of Pontevedra decided to uphold the appeal, revoke the appealed ruling and dismiss the claim.



To reach this conclusion, the Court stressed that the plaintiffs acknowledged in court that they hired and paid a financial advisor (or intermediary) to search, among the different offers in the banking market, for the best option to finance the purchase of a home at through a mortgage loan. An office of Banco Popular in Barcelona. (Photo: El Periódico) Taking this data into consideration, in the words of the Court, “ transparency control must be understood to have been overcome .” Specifically, "if the plaintiffs designate as agent an advisor or financial intermediary who is in charge of seeking the best offer for their clients, dealing directly and on behalf of their clients with the bank, it must be presumed that if this is at least part of its corporate purpose, to which it is dedicated professionally, explanations or information from the bank about the economic meaning of the floor clause that is assumed are unnecessary and redundant .