Once again, a UVA mortgagee received a judicial setback due to the increase in fees: the Court of Appeals of the Contentious Administrative, Tax and Consumer Relations Jurisdiction of the city of Buenos Aires rejected an injunction for the Bank of the Province of Buenos Aires to Aires charges a certain fee, according to a fixed percentage in relation to the first fee paid, updated by the Salary Variation Coefficient (CVS).
In the case, it was alleged that the evolution of mortgage loan payments, compared to the variation in income, had become excessively onerous. The plaintiff signed a mortgage loan with the defendant banking entity adjusted under the parameter of UVA (Unit of Purchasing Value).
He also denounced that the evolution of the mortgage loan installments, compared to the variation in his income, had become excessively onerous. He reported that, at the time of signing the contract in question, he received income both from his dependency relationship with a company ($25,665) and from his activity as a self-employed professional ($75,360); while, the month prior to the promotion of this action, his income consisted exclusively of the salary he received from the employment relationship ($300,000).
In the first instance, the requested precautionary measure was rejected. In order to decide, he maintained that the evidence provided could not show, prima facie, that there had been arbitrary or illegitimate action by the banking entity and it was also not found to be proven that it had “acted unfoundedly or acted without adherence to the regulations in force or outside of its legally established jurisdiction.”
In the case, no elements were provided to support that the terms of the contract would allow the plaintiff to be exempt from the obligations foreseen when taking the loan as a result of the reported loss of income.
“(…) it should be noted that the exogenous and extraordinary circumstances alleged by that would not be such as, prima facie, they would derive from an alteration in the composition of the income declared at the time of the conclusion of the contract involved,” the Court reiterated when analyzing the appeal filed by the mortgaged party.
For the camaristas, “the plaintiff, without showing that the greater onerousness invoked comes from the impact that exogenous causes – unrelated to the risk duly assumed – would have on the benefits for which it is responsible, limited itself to invoking, as support for its precautionary request, a decrease in their income during the month immediately preceding the promotion of the lawsuit”.
In the case, no elements were provided to maintain that the terms of the contract would allow the plaintiff to be exempt from the obligations foreseen when taking out the credit as a result of the reported loss of income, nor to show “even minimal plausibility in the right invoked, in attention to the existing relationship between both requirements, its analysis becomes unnecessary,” according to the ruling.
Dear fellow journalist: if you are going to use part of this note or the attached ruling as “inspiration” for your production, please cite us as a source including the active link to This is a signed note, do not omit the author’s name. Thank you so much.
2023-12-06 21:30:12
#setback #mortgaged
