They had both been unemployed for some time and four adults and two children were living off one salary, a situation that would not be sustainable for long.
They had tried to find a solution together with the bank where they would pay a lower monthly fee, but the bank had turned them down and instead offered them a worthless product. The bank did this despite knowing that their monthly fee would decrease within two months and there wasn´t any need for another product.

The bank sold them an interest-derivative as if that would function as an insurance in case the interest went up. What the bank didn´t tell them was that the interest had already dropped and would continue to descend. Furthermore, they disregarded telling them that they would be in debt to the bank for the derivative when the interest dropped.

If they already had trouble making ends meet at the end of the month, the added cost of the derivative made it impossible. They could no longer manage their payment plan for the house. They tried to pay as much as possible but one day they got word that the bank had filed for seizing the two houses the couple had used as insurance for the loan.

We agreed with Laura and Juan that we should sue the bank. The district court ruled against them. The judge felt that even if the bank hadn´t fulfilled its obligations, and even if the product was harmful for the clients, no one had forced them to sign the contract. If they couldn´t understand the terms in the contract, they should have sought out advice before signing.

We appealed to the court of appeal who found in our favor. According to the verdict, and current practice according to the Supreme Court, the bank has all the information and is obligated to inform its clients so that they have full knowledge about what they are signing.