The judge of Misiones, Carmen Elena Carbone, head of the Court of First Instance in Civil and Commercial Matters 6 of Posadas, ordered today that the takers of credits in Purchasing Value Unit (UVA) in Misiones «should not pay more than 25% of their net income in mortgage loan installments.
The decision was made based on a precautionary measure filed by six indebted families in four judicial areas of Posadas, represented by the lawyer José Bernardo Díaz.
The measure taken will be in force until the main lawsuit is resolved, which raises the revision of the contracts and which the Justice set at 90 days as a term to seek a resolution.
«The impact of price variations, in all aspects, on the family economies of consumers during and after the pandemic will undoubtedly be crossed by over-indebtedness; and in this sense, the answers must be built on guidelines of equity, ”said the judge.
In his considerations, he spoke of the gap between the inflation forecasts projected by the Mauricio Macri government when the UVA credits were launched on the market and the real evolution of inflation.
«The debts must be paid, but this cannot imply that it is paid at any cost, and the case such as the one in question arises, in which the State promoted the contracting of UVA credits, with important advertising of benefits, which which now translates into a different reality and an economic news, which decisively falls on the activity of financial entities”, he stated.
In the presentation of the debtors, it is requested that Justice intercede before four private banks based in Misiones to leave the UVA system, in order to pass to the Casa Propia formula and the readjustment of the debt.
This, in addition to moderating the current interests and requiring the nullity of abusive clauses.
From the self-convened UVA Mortgage Movement they highlighted the speed with which the Justice acted, and assured that in their opinion “they are protected from constitutional rights and guarantees and in international treaties with such hierarchy, in order to protect the rights of the plaintiffs and their families.”
“The judge has said that it is the north that gives meaning to the exposed precautionary provisions, considering as relevant that it is about housing, union headquarters and habitation, development and growth of the basic nucleus of our society, the family,” they expressed. .