“He showed me where to sign”
A visually impaired woman suffering from multiple sclerosis had no idea that she was a co-borrower. And that she would be subject to the requirement to repay the debt if her son stopped paying. No one told her about this. And they didn’t even explain the essence of what was exactly written in the contract. But these are the duties of a bank employee.
– I signed as a witness. My son told me, showing me where to sign. Everything happened in our house. The guy from the bank who came to see us simply asked me: “Is this your apartment?” I nodded: “Mine.” I couldn’t even imagine that I was accepting money, and not even with the security of my only home. As if I didn’t have a penny in my hand,” cries the pensioner. – But would I really take such a risk? The apartment is my only property! Where should I go now in my old age, to the street?
There are many questions for 25-year-old Sergei, the son of Yulia Yuryevna Pospelova. But he no longer contacts his mother. RG also failed to contact him. Two years ago, he was supposedly planning to start a business, but he was “just a little bit short” of the task.
To repay the debt, it is necessary to pay 85 thousand rubles a month. And the woman’s only means of subsistence is her pension of 25 thousand.
The loan agreement, which essentially became a death sentence for an elderly person, was concluded in the same apartment that the woman practically does not leave due to her diagnosis. The pensioner cannot understand that she was deceived by her dearest person (he barely knew about it). But when she tried to contact the law enforcement authorities, they simply ignored her and told her that it was a family matter, sort it out yourself.
Let us note that the consumer loan in question amounts to 3.5 million rubles. It was registered in a large Russian commercial bank under the security of an apartment by two co-borrowers – a son (who owns three-tenths of the apartment) and, as it turned out, his mother (who owns seven-tenths of the apartment). According to the schedule, it is necessary to pay 85 thousand rubles a month for repayment. And the woman’s only means of subsistence is her pension of $25,000. But the fact that it was she, Yulia Yuryevna Pospelova, who had difficulty moving around her own apartment and could barely make ends meet – a year later she learned from the bailiffs that she was the debtor.
– The ground has disappeared from under my feet. I didn’t take anything! What debt? – My interlocutor’s eyes are not dry from tears. But now the court decision has already come into force. A three-room apartment in a high-quality Stalinist building on Kutuzovsky Prospekt with a view of the Triumphal Arch, the market value of which is ten times higher than the amount of the loan, is being auctioned at a reduced price. But at the first stage there were no people willing to buy it. Then it will become cheaper and cheaper… It is not known whether the pensioner will have enough money for anything after selling it and paying off her debts.
The person she loved the most, the one she trusted blindly, has officially declared bankruptcy and abandoned her sick and disabled mother to the mercy of fate. But she doesn’t have money for a good lawyer.
The imperfection of legislation
This story can be a lesson for those who apply for loans secured by housing. It will not help even if it is the only apartment. And this, according to experts contacted by RG, is the imperfection of the current legislation.
According to Alexey Kryukov, the general director of the legal centre, this situation is unfortunately not an isolated case. When people take out loans secured by their only home, it is not always the result of a good life. And banks take advantage of this without even knowing the solvency of the client. Yes, they hedged their bets. If something happens, they have collateral – real estate. And they do not care that the person may simply end up on the street afterwards.
– Judicial practice in such cases in favor of banks has practically no exceptions. In the end, it turns out like this: a person in a difficult life situation turns to the bank for a loan, but there is no property as collateral, except for a single apartment. The bank, instead of simply refusing a loan (which would be fair and correct), does everything possible to ensure its issuance. The single dwelling should become a deterrent when granting a loan secured by it. It is time to make a change in the law, the lawyer is sure.
Meanwhile, at the legislative level, the only dwelling has enforcement immunity. That is, it cannot be taken away from debtors under any circumstances. For example, in the case of debts for utilities or in a promissory note where the property was not listed. But the case when the only dwelling is pledged for the granting of a loan, a loan or the fulfillment of other obligations is an exception and does not fall under immunity. In this case, the amount of the debt does not matter, only the fact of the collateral. The same applies to a mortgage loan, because until it is paid, the apartment is pledged to the bank.
But there is also good news. The State Duma recently passed a law allowing a bankrupt to not collect the only mortgage on his or her home. If it is approved by the Federation Council and signed by the president, it will come into force 30 days after its official publication. Its provisions will apply both to new bankruptcy cases and to those that have been initiated previously if the only mortgaged home of the debtor has not yet been sold.
only chance
There are not just a few, or even hundreds of cases where borrowers have lost out to banks. People take out secured loans, but for one reason or another they do not pay back; the result is the same: the property is auctioned off. In this case, the entire mortgaged property, even the only one, is auctioned off for non-payment. The only chance to save the situation is to challenge the pledge agreement itself.
As for the situation with Yulia Pospelova, according to the president of the Bar Association, Ksenia Kuyumdzhi, the only way out is to try to challenge the transaction in question (a loan agreement secured by real estate) as invalid, made under the influence of a misconception. The limitation period in this case is three years from the date of the transaction and has not yet expired. This can be done in a separate lawsuit or by filing a counterclaim against the bank.
– Since the victim has a serious illness, her vision is impaired, her motor functions are impaired, supporting documents can also be submitted to the court and, if necessary, a forensic medical examination can be conducted to confirm that the woman did not have the opportunity to read the loan agreement and understand its meaning when signing it. Recognizing such an agreement as invalid would make it possible to avoid foreclosure of the apartment, the lawyer notes.
How to avoid falling into slavery?
According to RG experts, first of all, it is necessary to tighten the requirements for potential borrowers when granting loans. It would be good if banks issued them only to people who can really repay them and did not impose unaffordable payments on the same disabled people. Do you want to take out a loan? Provide proof of solvency and a certificate of health: mental, physical, including vision (there are examples when loans are granted free of charge to blind people who could not even read the contract).
Secondly, the self-ban on taking out loans is intended to protect people from thoughtless, spontaneous and sometimes impulsive actions. The law on this matter, signed by the President of Russia, will come into force on March 1, 2025. It will apply to consumer loans and borrowing. Anyone can set a self-ban to avoid spontaneously taking out a loan. You can also remove such a ban yourself. But the permission will not come into force immediately. All such actions will appear in a person’s credit history.
“If there is a ban, the lender must refuse the citizen to conclude a consumer loan agreement with him. If the agreement is concluded, despite the ban, the lender will not be able to demand that the borrower fulfill his obligations,” said Anatoly Aksakov, head of the State Duma Committee on the Financial Market.
Meanwhile, banks are faced with more questions than ever. On what basis do their employees come to sign contracts at borrowers’ homes, if the property is expensive? And in general, it seems that banks deliberately choose a category of clients who will not be able to pay their bills. They refuse to grant loans to solvent and healthy working citizens, while approving them to those who sometimes do not even have a means of subsistence, but still have a single place to live.
